AA Posted December 7, 2002 Report Share Posted December 7, 2002 How...?? 31045 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6209.000 FPS 26232 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5246.400 FPS 31093 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6218.600 FPS 31175 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6235.000 FPS 31170 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6234.800 FPS 31194 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6238.800 FPS this is while running "glxgears" What the hell is going on....? Does someone know. It doesnt seem accurate because I am only running an XP 1500+ clocked to 1600+ with a GeForece 4 mx440. 256 MB DDR hynix RAM. Maxtor 5400rpm 40 GIG. [/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted December 7, 2002 Report Share Posted December 7, 2002 What terminal are you using/ how big is the window? Are you resizing the term window? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AA Posted December 7, 2002 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2002 the term windows takes up about half of my desktop, it's transparent and yeah. I am using the KDE Konsole. I am not touching the windows either. I have a screenshot..... should i mail it...!! where should i mail it too...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glitz Posted December 7, 2002 Report Share Posted December 7, 2002 I have a Geforce 3 card and two 433MHz Celerons and GLXGEARS at its default window size (under KDE) gives me about 2830 frames per second. Glitz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted December 7, 2002 Report Share Posted December 7, 2002 [root@localhost bvc9]# glxgears 8867 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1773.400 FPS 12947 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2589.400 FPS 12950 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2590.000 FPS 12961 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2592.200 FPS 12998 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2599.600 FPS 12978 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2595.600 FPS 7740 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1548.000 FPS 3880 frames in 5.0 seconds = 776.000 FPS 3890 frames in 5.0 seconds = 778.000 FPS 3884 frames in 5.0 seconds = 776.800 FPS 6434 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1286.800 FPS 9286 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1857.200 FPS 9287 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1857.400 FPS 9269 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1853.800 FPS 5591 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1118.200 FPS 3877 frames in 5.0 seconds = 775.400 FPS 3884 frames in 5.0 seconds = 776.800 FPS 3879 frames in 5.0 seconds = 775.800 FPS 4999 frames in 5.0 seconds = 999.800 FPS I have a GeForce2 MX200 (32MB), on a Celeron 600MHz with 192MB RAM, and a maxtor 7200rpm. What I did to get the above; -type glxgears -click xterm window to bring xterm on top of glxgears window (increased speed) -moved xterm so both xterm and glxgears were visable (slowed speed) -moved xterm back on top glxgears (increased speed) -moved xterm so both xterm and glxgears were visable (slowed speed) There are many things that can effect the output. Try a diff term and keep both the term and the glxgears window visable. You have twice the sys I do so you're flying high! :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glitz Posted December 7, 2002 Report Share Posted December 7, 2002 Just for fun I tried running GLXGEARS on my 100MHz pentium server and piping the output to my Geforce 3 using SSH over a 100Mbps ethernet network. I get about 1450 frames per second. Glitz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AA Posted December 7, 2002 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2002 OK that would explain it... When glxgears was visable at the same time as the terminal window the FPS wasabout 3000. Then I strated doing other stuff and when I came back to the glxgears the FPS was in the 6000's. So yes that does make sense I guess... Cool, thanx. Question: how do you copy things out of your terminal windows....? I dont have an option to do that. or do you just use CTRL + C.............??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted December 7, 2002 Report Share Posted December 7, 2002 http://www.mandrakeusers.org/viewtopic.php?t=969 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AA Posted December 7, 2002 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2002 Cool..... Thanx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyv Posted December 8, 2002 Report Share Posted December 8, 2002 Heres mine So it definately helps you frame rate when the display is covered by the console 6000 vs 18000 It's just a pity you can't run games like that :P [john@bobs john]$ glxgears 30135 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6027.000 FPS 30149 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6029.800 FPS 30072 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6014.400 FPS 88754 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17750.800 FPS 93472 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18694.400 FPS 93370 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18674.000 FPS 93478 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18695.600 FPS 93450 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18690.000 FPS 93377 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18675.400 FPS 93517 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18703.400 FPS X connection to :0.0 broken (explicit kill or server shutdown). [john@bobs john]$ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradcarter Posted December 9, 2002 Report Share Posted December 9, 2002 you guys tease me 526 frames in 5.0 seconds = 105.200 FPS 480 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96.000 FPS 480 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96.000 FPS 400 frames in 5.0 seconds = 80.000 FPS 480 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96.000 FPS 480 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96.000 FPS 480 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96.000 FPS 480 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96.000 FPS 480 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96.000 FPS that is the best I can get, worked on it for several hours today and I got it up from 50-60 FPS I have come to the determination my 4MB video card cannot handle this too well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezroller Posted December 9, 2002 Report Share Posted December 9, 2002 copy and paste is easy, just highlight to copy, and middle mouse button (wheel click) to paste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JaseP Posted December 9, 2002 Report Share Posted December 9, 2002 I have an AMD Athlon XP 2100+ and a motherboard with a KT333 chipset. I also have an nVidia GeForce2 MX400 64MB AGP graphics card. I'm using the Mandrake 8.2 default drivers. I can't get framerates over about 390 FPS in glxgears without reducing the size of the glxgears window... One thought of mine was that there might be drivers left loading that are causing the lower frame rates. I have the nvAgp setting on 3 (having it automatically try AGPgart, then native AGP) Others seem to have much higher frame rates with similar hardware. Any suggestions??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradcarter Posted December 9, 2002 Report Share Posted December 9, 2002 try in a console glxinfo look for direct rendering it should say yes if it says no enabling it should help you out. I tihnk anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JaseP Posted December 9, 2002 Report Share Posted December 9, 2002 Is direct rendering one of the options available for the XF86Config file for the nVidia drivers??? My Config already has GLX loading with the specific path to the nVidia executable (as opposed to the generic one). I was just wondering if maybe I hadn't unloaded the nv driver properly and had it hogging the video card in the background,... or whether there was some other issue I hadn't resolved. I should be getting framerates better than 370 or so on the type of machine I indicated above, shouldn't I??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.