MandrivaUsers.org > New NVIDIA

bvc

Jul 29 2003, 01:28 AM

for those that don't know yet....the new ver is up.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux.html
http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display...2_1.0-4496.html

pmpatrick

Jul 29 2003, 02:59 AM

Thanks!!

Just upgraded and got a 150 fps increase in glxgears for my FX 5200.

bvc

Jul 29 2003, 03:24 AM

I'm only getting 20 more fps for my GF2 MX200

......that's ok....getting a new card in Feb or Mar of 2004.

johnnyv

Jul 29 2003, 08:12 AM

damn im getting around 40 fps less on glxgears on my ti4200, must see what it runs like in game.

SoulSe

Jul 29 2003, 08:10 PM

The day after I downloaded the previous release! :roll:

Anyway, these seem to be the best drivers so far... that might be a tad premature, but so far anyway...

SoulSe

Jul 29 2003, 08:44 PM

BTW - what is the best way to upgrade? I'm assuming there must be a switch or somethin'

Ixthusdan

Jul 29 2003, 09:32 PM

Just run the script. It uninstalls, compiles, and installs, all in one easy application!! Nvidia is really doing a grand job with linux.

heather1113

Jul 30 2003, 04:11 AM

To upgrade all you have to do is get out of X and in the console type

nvidia-installer --update

It will then download the new version, uninstall the old one, and install the new one automatically. Possibly not in that order though.

aRTee

Jul 30 2003, 07:35 AM

I don't care about any speed increase, have they become more stable???

The other thing I care about is if it will allow me to do dual display while setting 'overlay' on the SECOND instead of the first display, and blitted video on the first.
But according to the readme this is still not possible. Darn!

scoopy

Jul 30 2003, 04:36 PM

Could some kind soul please up this to our server. Nvidia's site is down at this time.

ftp://213.232.94.69/pub/
or ???
http://www.mandrakeusers.org/downloads.php

Thanx

Oh never mind... Konq was just freakin out for some reason. Strange, cause other sites were loading fine.

sarah31

Jul 30 2003, 05:40 PM

:roll: fps fps bah who the heck cares. you think your average game needs alot of fps. :roll:

at least i have something to do when i go home.

tyme

Jul 30 2003, 06:09 PM

it's also more stable, and has some added features/support ;-)

personally, i didn't notice any difference in speed...but then again, i never understood overclocking either...

static

Jul 30 2003, 08:00 PM

If you can afford to pay for new hardware after toasting your wares by overclocking, why not stop being el-cheapo and pay for good hardware in the first place?? I did, and my 733/133 w/ 512 of 133 RAM still runs like the dickens. And my 64MB VIVO ATI Radeon with it... I haven't played a game that lags yet. Why overclock??

My new system will have my FSB (ram, mobo, cpu) all at 400MHz. Those new athlons..mmmm....

Kids: Do it right the first time. It pays off because even if it means paying a little more upfront, you don't have to live with regret and upgrade costs.

anon

Jul 30 2003, 08:54 PM

QUOTE

:roll: fps fps bah who the heck cares. you think your average game needs alot of fps. :roll:

at least i have something to do when i go home.

No ones taken the bait yet Sarah

give it more time?? :wink:

anon

Jul 30 2003, 09:20 PM

QUOTE

Could some kind soul please up this to our server. Nvidia's site is down at this time.
.

Done.

ftp://213.232.94.69/pub/Nvidia

aRTee

Jul 31 2003, 01:22 PM

I just installed it last night, will see if I have less crashes.
(Had one or two a month, not counting overclocking attempts that are just a waste of time)

BTW so I don't overclock but I do run my 2400+ at 154x13 instead of 133x15 which means I'm just pushing a bit on the front side bus, not on the cpu frequency.
At least that gives me memorybus-front side bus parity.

And yes, I agree, why overclock if you can just buy faster hardware.
I care a lot more about stability. My system should not crash. Ever. But it still does, occasionally. Hope that is over now.

Oh yeah, to install nvidia drivers, I went to the console before loggin on, did a telinit 3 as root but of course since I had been too lame to install nvidia drivers before, and didn't check any instructions, I got to see lynx in action:
lynx www.nvidia.com
and on from there...

Anyway,did anyone notice the license? Explicitly mentioning that nvidia drivers may be redistributed? As long as it is not reverse engineered.

So with unified nvidia drivers, plus inclusion of such in any linux distro, we (all linux users) should soon have 3d nvidia graphics out of the box!!!
Pretty cool!

sirtaldon

Jul 31 2003, 05:20 PM

I ran glxgears after updating to the new driver, but I am wondering what sort of numbers I should be seeing. I have a GeForce4 ti4400 w128mb ram. But my cpu is only a P3-850mhz, so I am sure I am not pushing the card to the max. At monitor res of 1280x1024, a small glxgears window pops up when I issue the command and runs like hell, and does fine when I maximize the window. I have edited the output below to differentiate between the original window that pops up when the command is issued, and when the window is full screen.

$ glxgears
19320 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3864.000 FPS original size window
18217 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3643.400 FPS original size window
20212 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4042.400 FPS original size window
2455 frames in 5.0 seconds = 491.000 FPS full screen
1678 frames in 5.0 seconds = 335.600 FPS full screen
1682 frames in 5.0 seconds = 336.400 FPS full screen
20161 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4032.200 FPS original size window

These are better than the old version was giving me, but I am curious as to what others are getting. My system is old, and not overclocked, but I have no stability problems at all with X.

sirtaldon

sarah31

Jul 31 2003, 05:49 PM

QUOTE

:roll: fps fps bah who the heck cares. you think your average game needs alot of fps. :roll:

at least i have something to do when i go home.

No ones taken the bait yet Sarah

give it more time?? :wink:

heh. well when it comes to gamers any flamebait you throw out get ignored. once you think fps is the big requirement then forget trying to convince one otherwise

i was just bored anyway ... no harm dun.

aRTee

Jul 31 2003, 07:30 PM

Ok, so I shutdown last night, rebooted just now.

No X

Darn!

/var/log/XF log file told me:

CODE

(--) NVIDIA(0): Linear framebuffer at 0xE8000000

(--) NVIDIA(0): MMIO registers at 0xE5000000

(EE) NVIDIA(0): Failed to initialize the NVIDIA kernel module!

(EE) NVIDIA(0): *** Aborting ***

(II) UnloadModule: "nvidia"

(II) UnloadModule: "vgahw"

(II) Unloading /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/libvgahw.a

(EE) Screen(s) found, but none have a usable configuration.

Fatal server error:

no screens found

What the fsck is going on??
So I just su to root, checked whether the module was loaded (NVdriver) with lsmod, unloaded and reloaded etc.
Then thought: what the heck, I'll just reinstall.
And after that, xstart (as normal user) just worked....

Then I thought: let's try glxgears too.
No go.

CODE

$ glxgears

NV: could not open control device /dev/nvidiactl (Permission denied)

Error: Could not open /dev/nvidiactl because the permissions

are too resticitive. Please see the FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

section of /usr/share/doc/NVIDIA_GLX-1.0/README for steps

to correct.

and:

$ ll /dev/nvidia*

crw------- 1 root root 195, 0 Jan 1 1970 /dev/nvidia0

crw------- 1 root root 195, 255 Jan 1 1970 /dev/nvidiactl

So I corrected that with chmod 0666 /dev/nvidia*
but in any case, it is weird, or am I wrong?
Did I miss anything?

Anyway, my glxgears tells me:

CODE

13098 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2619.600 FPS

13136 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2627.200 FPS

13027 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2605.400 FPS

1950 frames in 5.0 seconds = 190.000 FPS

964 frames in 5.0 seconds = 192.800 FPS

954 frames in 5.0 seconds = 190.800 FPS

and that is with a gf ti4200-64MB and athlon 2400+, which went to 100% usage. Note that my display res is 1600x1200...

tyme

Jul 31 2003, 07:35 PM

start moving around windows at the end of that glxgears run, didn't ya?

hey sarah31: i didn't take the bait this time ;-) keep trying! we can have a fun game of fisher and fish!

aRTee

Jul 31 2003, 07:57 PM

Nope, that last bit with the low scores is full screen. No mouse/windows were being moved at all.

tyme

Jul 31 2003, 08:01 PM

QUOTE

Nope, that last bit with the low scores is full screen. No mouse/windows were being moved at all.

oh...quite a slowdown! then again, 1600x1200 is quite the insane resolution ;-) (if my monitor was capable of it i would use it!)

jlc

Jul 31 2003, 08:13 PM

QUOTE

I ran glxgears after updating to the new driver, but I am wondering what sort of numbers I should be seeing. I have a GeForce4 ti4400 w128mb ram. But my cpu is only a P3-850mhz, so I am sure I am not pushing the card to the max. At monitor res of 1280x1024, a small glxgears window pops up when I issue the command and runs like hell, and does fine when I maximize the window. I have edited the output below to differentiate between the original window that pops up when the command is issued, and when the window is full screen.

$ glxgears
19320 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3864.000 FPS original size window
18217 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3643.400 FPS original size window
20212 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4042.400 FPS original size window
2455 frames in 5.0 seconds = 491.000 FPS full screen
1678 frames in 5.0 seconds = 335.600 FPS full screen
1682 frames in 5.0 seconds = 336.400 FPS full screen
20161 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4032.200 FPS original size window

These are better than the old version was giving me, but I am curious as to what others are getting. My system is old, and not overclocked, but I have no stability problems at all with X.

sirtaldon

I get an average of 17,000 fps in :slackware: @ 1280x1024 with the latest nvidia drivers, I was getting that in the past though. :libranet: also give's me the same numbers. I'm at work, I'll post when I get home so people don't think I'm lying.

Spec's are bellow in the sign.

jlc

Jul 31 2003, 09:50 PM

Here we go:

CODE

justin@morpheus:~$ glxgears

15040 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3008.000 FPS

23763 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4752.600 FPS

73592 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14718.400 FPS

67532 frames in 5.0 seconds = 13506.400 FPS

84965 frames in 5.0 seconds = 16993.000 FPS

89251 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17850.200 FPS

88824 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17764.800 FPS

89116 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17823.200 FPS

89207 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17841.400 FPS

88814 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17762.800 FPS

88790 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17758.000 FPS

87901 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17580.200 FPS

89453 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17890.600 FPS

89202 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17840.400 FPS

89267 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17853.400 FPS

89413 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17882.600 FPS

89196 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17839.200 FPS

89073 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17814.600 FPS

89370 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17874.000 FPS

89310 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17862.000 FPS

89123 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17824.600 FPS

89071 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17814.200 FPS

89348 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17869.600 FPS

89283 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17856.600 FPS

89169 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17833.800 FPS

89044 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17808.800 FPS

89190 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17838.000 FPS

89192 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17838.400 FPS

88525 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17705.000 FPS

89485 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17897.000 FPS

Takes a little to ramp up and then it's OFF!

aRTee

Jul 31 2003, 10:36 PM

Hmmm,....
very high.. I don't get it, mine should be at least at your level, just look at my specs...

What's your screen resolution and colour depth?

jlc

Jul 31 2003, 10:42 PM

QUOTE

Hmmm,....
very high.. I don't get it, mine should be at least at your level, just look at my specs...

What's your screen resolution and colour depth?

Section "Screen"
Identifier "Screen 1"
Device "GForce ti_4200"
Monitor "Samtron 75v"
DefaultDepth 24

Subsection "Display"
Depth 24
Modes "1280x1024" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
ViewPort 0 0
EndSubsection

VertRefresh 50-160
HorizSync 30-70

I don't know if the extra 64MB's on my NVidia would make that much difference, but your cpu is faster???

Could it be :slackware: simple, got to LOVE it.

:wink:

johnnyv

Aug 1 2003, 12:02 AM

QUOTE

Hmmm,....
very high.. I don't get it, mine should be at least at your level, just look at my specs...

What's your screen resolution and colour depth?

Section "Screen"
Identifier "Screen 1"
Device "GForce ti_4200"
Monitor "Samtron 75v"
DefaultDepth 24

Subsection "Display"
Depth 24
Modes "1280x1024" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
ViewPort 0 0
EndSubsection

VertRefresh 50-160
HorizSync 30-70

I don't know if the extra 64MB's on my NVidia would make that much difference, but your cpu is faster???

Could it be :slackware: simple, got to LOVE it.

:wink:

Actually the 64mb ti4200 is faster than the 128mb version as the ram is faster on the 64mb.
I would assume that Glxgears would not be using more than 64mb of the gpu's memory.

Your fps seems highly unlikely i have a 1800xp with a ti4200 128mb and i get a little over 600 fps fullscreen at 1152 X 864 24bit.

In quake3 games i get around 100fps at that resolution what do you get on games? if your glxgears was correct then you should be getting around 1000fps in quake 3. :wink:

jlc

Aug 1 2003, 12:08 AM

How do I check While I'm in a game?

QUOTE

Your fps seems highly unlikely i have a 1800xp with a ti4200 128mb and i get a little over 600 fps fullscreen at 1152 X 864 24bit.

I know, no one ever believes me even though I post it. Maybe I'll do a screeshot so people will have more proof.

jlc

Aug 1 2003, 12:17 AM

I don't know if this is correct or not, but I started up glxgears while quake3 was installing, xmms playing, mozilla(this board up) and kicked off and started playing Enemy Territory for a few minutes.

Here you go.

CODE

justin@morpheus:~$ glxgears

15033 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3006.600 FPS

33718 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6743.600 FPS

59945 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11989.000 FPS

56439 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11287.800 FPS

26076 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5215.200 FPS

32072 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6414.400 FPS

34144 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6828.800 FPS

36573 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7314.600 FPS

37013 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7402.600 FPS

39879 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7975.800 FPS

37103 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7420.600 FPS

38886 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7777.200 FPS

40916 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8183.200 FPS

40896 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8179.200 FPS

36512 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7302.400 FPS

33790 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6758.000 FPS

22937 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4587.400 FPS

22458 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4491.600 FPS

27839 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5567.800 FPS

22034 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4406.800 FPS

22594 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4518.800 FPS

21841 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4368.200 FPS

23061 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4612.200 FPS

23591 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4718.200 FPS

24980 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4996.000 FPS

28515 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5703.000 FPS

36799 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7359.800 FPS

26857 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5371.400 FPS

28222 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5644.400 FPS

24986 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4997.200 FPS

28493 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5698.600 FPS

21896 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4379.200 FPS

26803 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5360.600 FPS

28437 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5687.400 FPS

24496 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4899.200 FPS

35531 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7106.200 FPS

60319 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12063.800 FPS

X connection to :0.0 broken (explicit kill or server shutdown).

johnnyv

Aug 1 2003, 03:00 AM

you have enemy territory?

play a game and open the console window (~ key) then type "cg_drawFPS 1" without the quotes. will display the fps, play a bit and see if i fluctuates and see what sort of range of values you get.
I don't know if timedemo works for ET

Also remember to note the resolution and the display depth 16 or 24bit from your ET settings.

I will do the same when i get home.

edit: that is "/cg_drawFPS 1" not "cg_drawFPS 1"
@ 1152 X 864 24bit
I get 90fps pretty much solid can drop to 70 if massive amoun't of explosions going on.
I can't remember the command to allow a higher fps.

jlc

Aug 1 2003, 11:41 AM

QUOTE

"/cg_drawFPS 1"

Ok, now it worked.

It was going from around 65-75 @ 1280x1024 32 bit selected in options in ET.

johnnyv

Aug 2 2003, 04:12 AM

Thats sounds about right, for that resolution. So there seems to be something fishy about your glxgears program.