cymbaloum Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 (edited) So I got a laptop with Mdv 2006 installed on it. The laptop is equiped with an ATI Radeon Mobility X700 and everything was fine since Tux racer was conveniently accelerated. But then I updated the system throgh MCC,, which caused a lot of updates to occur (among others the X.org rpms, etc. Since then (or at least I think it's linked to it) Tux Racer achieves a blasting 4 FPS, and glxinfo gives me this: $ glxinfo | grep renderdirect rendering: No OpenGL renderer string: Mesa GLX Indirect When I check xorgconf I see this: ...# === ATI device section === Section "Device" Identifier "ATI Graphics Adapter" Driver "fglrx" Screen 0 BusID "PCI:1:0:0" # vendor=1002, device=5d48 Option "FSAAMSPosY1" "0.000000" Option "StereoSyncEnable" "1" Option "CapabilitiesEx" "0x00000000" # ### generic DRI settings ### # === disable PnP Monitor === #Option "NoDDC" Option "FSAAMSPosX5" "0.000000" Option "FSAAMSPosY4" "0.000000" Option "FSAAMSPosX2" "0.000000" # === Pseudo Color Visuals (8-bit visuals) === Option "PseudoColorVisuals" "off" Option "FSAAMSPosX4" "0.000000" Option "FSAAMSPosY0" "0.000000" Option "FSAADisableGamma" "no" # === Video Overlay for the Xv extension === Option "VideoOverlay" "on" Option "ForceGenericCPU" "no" Option "GammaCorrectionII" "0x00000000" # === misc DRI settings === Option "mtrr" "off" # disable DRI mtrr mapper, driver has its own code for mtrr Option "FSAAMSPosY5" "0.000000" # === Center Mode (Laptops only) === Option "CenterMode" "off" # === OpenGL Overlay === # Note: When OpenGL Overlay is enabled, Video Overlay # will be disabled automatically Option "OpenGLOverlay" "off" Option "FSAACustomizeMSPos" "no" Option "FSAAScale" "1" # ### FireGL DDX driver module specific settings ### # === Screen Management === Option "DesktopSetup" "(null)" # === FSAA Management === Option "FSAAEnable" "no" Option "no_dri" "no" Option "FSAAMSPosX0" "0.000000" Option "GammaCorrectionI" "0x00000000" Option "UseInternalAGPGART" "yes" Option "BlockSignalsOnLock" "on" Option "FSAAMSPosX1" "0.000000" # === Misc Options === Option "UseFastTLS" "0" # === disable/enable XAA/DRI === Option "no_accel" "no" # === OpenGL specific profiles/settings === Option "Capabilities" "0x00000000" Option "FSAAMSPosY3" "0.000000" Option "FSAAMSPosY2" "0.000000" Option "ScreenOverlap" "0" # === QBS Management === Option "Stereo" "off" Option "FSAAMSPosX3" "0.000000" EndSection ... So somehow remains of the ATI installation are still present in the X.org configuration file, but the driver or card does not seem to load. Another piece of info: in MCC the card is correctly mentioned, but there is a mention "module: unknown". I don't know if it's relevant. I have never tried to set up a 3D card, and I am spooked about turning matters from bad to worse by making dumb troubleshooting. On the other hand the thing worked once, so it should be able to work again. Can anyone give me some directions? (and yes, I have read quite a few pages on the topic, but came out of them even more confused than before). Edited February 25, 2006 by cymbaloum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 If you are using the drivers from the ATI site, you will probably need to reinstall them since you updated. You can get them here, but note that it states that they are for Xorg 6.8, if you upgraded to 6.9 they may or may not work, but it's worth a try ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymbaloum Posted February 25, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 Continuing my graphics card installation hell: I read here that I should install plf packages to make the ATI card work (and deal with the X.org mess): ati-xorg-8.20.8-2.1.20060plf dkms-ati-8.20.8-2.1.20060plf kernel-source-2.6-2.6.12-12mdk Now when I try to install those packages, I end up with: ati-xorg-8.22.5-0.1.20060plf.i586 dkms-ati-8.22.5-0.1.20060plf.i586 kernel-source-2.6-2.6.12-17mdk So when the system tries to install the ati packages, it does not find the kernel-source...12 tree: Préparation ... ############################################# 1/2: ati-xorg #warning: /etc/fglrxprofiles.csv created as /e c/fglrxprofiles.csv.rpmnew warning: /etc/fglrxrc created as /etc/fglrxrc.rpmnew ############################################ 2/2: dkms-ati ############################################# Creating symlink /var/lib/dkms/ati/8.22.5-0.1.20060plf/source -> /usr/src/ati-8.22.5-0.1.20060plf DKMS: add Completed. Error! Your kernel source for kernel 2.6.12-12mdk cannot be found at /lib/modules/2.6.12-12mdk/build or /lib/modules/2.6.12-12mdk/source. You can use the --kernelsourcedir option to tell DKMS where it's located. Error! Could not locate fglrx.ko.gz for module ati in the DKMS tree. You must run a dkms build for kernel 2.6.12-12mdk (i586) first. What do I do now? should I do as sugested and use I don't know which command with --kernelsourcedir to point to the I don't know where but finishing with 17 source tree? and how do I try again the install? (I have the feeling I'm trapped in the DLL chamber of hell) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymbaloum Posted February 25, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 * sigh! * So, it happened as I feared, I'm writing this from the command line with w3m, since I don't have a functioning X anymore (BTW: what's the problem with MUB cookies? I get plenty of bad cookie format errors when using w3m). Here is a recap: A nice guy from freenode: #mandriva suggested me to download the kernel...17, since the sources were for kernel...17. This I did, and then rebooted. During reboot the ati dmkz launched the installation of the ati driver, which it completed without mentioning any problem, so I suppose it went ok. I was then left on the command line. After loggin in I typed: $uname -a Which told me that I was indeed with a kernel...17. So far so good. I then launched XFdrake under root, to finish the setup The monitor resolution was set correctly, and I could choose without problems the monitor type (Flat Panel 1680x1050). But when I hit Graphic Card section, the default selection for X.org server is vesa. I could find in the list Radeon and ati, but when I try to select them nothing happens, and XFdrake behaves as if nothing had been selected. If I try to launch X with startx I receive a predictable black screen. Any idea on how to proceed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 Try using mcc from the command line instead, and choose the Display option to configure the card. I normally select ATI Radeon (fglrx), and continue through. Then when configured, exit, and then go back into mcc again, and see if it remembered the configuration. If it did, then make sure you're logged in as standard user, and not root, and then try startx. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymbaloum Posted February 25, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 Try using mcc from the command line instead, and choose the Display option to configure the card. I normally select ATI Radeon (fglrx), and continue through. Then when configured, exit, and then go back into mcc again, and see if it remembered the configuration. If it did, then make sure you're logged in as standard user, and not root, and then try startx. Thanks for the help. Mcc leads to XFdrake, which is what I was using. But following your instructions made me realize that there were many more options than I thought (they were hidden as a collapsed tree). Sure enough, fglrx was among them. Now not only I recovered my X, but I even have graphics 3D acceleration! THIS IS GREAT!, thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 I never normally type XFdrake since it's longer than mcc :P Glad you're up and running and working now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferao Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 Now not only I recovered my X, but I even have graphics 3D acceleration! THIS IS GREAT!, thanks Hi cymbaloum, I'm trying to achieve the same too... Can I ask you a few questions? Are you sure you have 3D graphics acceleration? What is the output of glxinfo | grep render ? And what about the test with glxgears ? Which framerate can you get ? Which version of mandriva 2006 do you have? Did you upgraded some packages after your basic installation? For example did you installed the packages you mentioned ? I mean ati-xorg-8.22.5-0.1.20060plf.i586 dkms-ati-8.22.5-0.1.20060plf.i586 kernel-source-2.6-2.6.12-17mdk Which version of x.org do you have? And of the kernel ? You can see by entering rpm -qa | grep x.org rpm -qa | grep kernel Sorry for the series of question, but you are the first person I could find declaring explicitly to have got 3D acceleration with mandriva 2006 and ati radeon. I can't get it, I'm quite desperate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymbaloum Posted February 26, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2006 Can I ask you a few questions? No problem, I would be happy to save you some the pain I went through. Are you sure you have 3D graphics acceleration? What is the output of glxinfo | grep render ? $ glxinfo | grep render direct rendering: Yes GLX_ATI_render_texture OpenGL renderer string: MOBILITY RADEON X700 Generic And what about the test with glxgears ? Which framerate can you get ? $ glxgears 23283 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4655.661 FPS Which version of mandriva 2006 do you have? mandriva 2006 official (free) Did you upgraded some packages after your basic installation? Yes, that was the source of the problem, because to solve a buggy X server distributed in the official CDs, Mandriva updated to X.org 6.9, to which my ATI drivers were not compatible. So the solution is to install the new drivers that ATI released the 20th january (they say compatible X.org 6.8, but it also works with X.org 6.9, I found out). You can try to install them by yourself but the good folks from PLF already did the dirty job for you, so it's better to benefit from their experience. For example did you installed the packages you mentioned ? I mean ati-xorg-8.22.5-0.1.20060plf.i586 dkms-ati-8.22.5-0.1.20060plf.i586 kernel-source-2.6-2.6.12-17mdk I installed those packages, but in order for kernel-source package to work, you need to update your kernel (mine was still kernel...12, not kernel...17. BTW, make sure that your urpmi lists are updated, I could not see the kernel package because for some reason my urpmi lists were not up to date. Which version of x.org do you have? And of the kernel ? You can see by entering rpm -qa | grep x.org rpm -qa | grep kernel rpm -qa | grep x.org gives nothing, one needs to type rpm -qa | grep xorg $ rpm -qa | grep xorg libxorg-x11-devel-6.9.0-5.2.20060mdk xorg-x11-6.9.0-5.2.20060mdk xorg-x11-75dpi-fonts-6.9.0-5.2.20060mdk ati-xorg-8.22.5-0.1.20060plf libxorg-x11-6.9.0-5.2.20060mdk xorg-x11-xauth-6.9.0-5.2.20060mdk xorg-x11-server-6.9.0-5.2.20060mdk xorg-x11-xfs-6.9.0-5.2.20060mdk $ rpm -qa | grep kernel kernel-source-2.6-2.6.12-17mdk kernel-source-stripped-2.6-2.6.12-17mdk kernel-2.6.12.17mdk-1-1mdk kernel-2.6.12.12mdk-1-1mdk Note: I kept kernel...12 as a security, but I'm using kernel..17 $ uname -a Linux ***** 2.6.12-17mdk #1 Mon Feb 13 14:24:15 MST 2006 i686 Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 2.00GHz unknown GNU/Linux Sorry for the series of question, but you are the first person I could find declaring explicitly to have got 3D acceleration with mandriva 2006 and ati radeon. I can't get it, I'm quite desperate. This should work all right. For me the ati drivers were configured during boot by dmkz. Good luck and don't forget to write down in this thread wathever you learn about this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 I decided to give this a go on one of my machines, that runs an ATI Radeon 9250 R925 card, with 128MB of memory. When I had LE2005 on my machine, I would get about 1200fps using the normal drivers. If I tried to use ATI's drivers, it borked it all, and brought it down to around 200fps. I then recently upgraded to 2006, and figured I'd give this a go as above, and see if it worked. Unfortunately, it seems for my card, that the dkms stuff doesn't work either. I installed the following items: dkms-minimal:dkms-minimal-2.0.5.9-3mdk.noarch.rpm dkms:dkms-2.0.5.9-3mdk.noarch.rpm dkms-ati:dkms-ati-8.22.5-0.1.20060plf.i586.rpm ati-xorg:ati-xorg-8.22.5-0.1.20060plf.i586.rpm kernel-source-2.6:kernel-source-2.6-2.6.12-17mdk.i586.rpm and of course: uname -a Linux excel.buziaks.com 2.6.12-17mdk #1 Mon Feb 13 14:24:15 MST 2006 i686 AMD Sempron(tm) 2300+ unknown GNU/Linux my kernel is the correct version for the source. Here is what I had before the installation: glxinfo | grep direct Loading required GL library /usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1.2 direct rendering: Yes [joanna@excel ~]$ glxgears Loading required GL library /usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1.2 7849 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1569.752 FPS 7856 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1571.054 FPS 7838 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1567.526 FPS and here is what I got after the installation: glxinfo | grep direct direct rendering: No OpenGL renderer string: Mesa GLX Indirect [joanna@excel ~]$ glxgears 1261 frames in 5.0 seconds = 252.157 FPS 1267 frames in 5.0 seconds = 253.292 FPS 1266 frames in 5.0 seconds = 253.189 FPS it seems for my card, that the ATI driver is a waste of time, since the standard one works well. At least this is from my experience, and never been able to get any more than the 1500fps or so that I have so far. My Nvidia card with 128MB memory, gets well over 4000fps, which I would have expected this ATI card with 128MB as well to be able to achieve. It seems not, which makes me think to never buy another ATI video card again, and to always purchase Nvidia, since they always seem to work quickly and easily with the least amount of effort. Just my view :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferao Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 (edited) Good luck and don't forget to write down in this thread wathever you learn about this issue. Thank you very much, I tried with your packages, and I am quite sure that the drivers were installed correctly. If, via XFdrake, I choose fglrx without 3D accel. everything is fine. If I enable 3D accel., I get a black screen, and my consolle freezes (also Ctrl+Alt+Bkspace or Ctr+Alt+F1 doesn't work). I think there is an issue with my card, it is an ATI Radeon Xpress 200M. The official ATI documentation for linux fglrx drivers states that it is compatible, but I fear it is not. I will google for it... Well I found something, I post it here as somebody with my card may find it useful... Setting up ATI Radeon XPress 200M under Linux Tomorrow I will try even this... Edited February 27, 2006 by ferao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferao Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 Well, it worked, in some sense. I had to change my BIOS settings, changing the type of memory for my video card from Sideport to UMA. (See the link in my last post). Now I have DRI enabled, but my fps in glxgears are still very poor (650 fps). This is not satisfying anyway, as I have to sacrifice all the benefits that my card could give me, i.e. dedicated memory, and this has effects also on my WinXP system. The article I found said that also the setting Sideport+UMA should work, but actually it didn't work for me. In any case, thank you for the help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 Note that glxgears is really only good at telling you if direct rendering works. To truly test graphics performance in Linux you need to try out an 3D/OpenGL game. I have no seen any linux graphics benchmarks that I would consider reliable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymbaloum Posted March 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 Note that glxgears is really only good at telling you if direct rendering works. To truly test graphics performance in Linux you need to try out an 3D/OpenGL game. I have no seen any linux graphics benchmarks that I would consider reliable. Well, I suppose that while a high glxgears does not necessarily mean good performance in a 3D/OpenGL game, but low glxgears performance makes it certain that game graphics performance will be poor, unfortunatelly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 Well, I suppose that while a high glxgears does not necessarily mean good performance in a 3D/OpenGL game, but low glxgears performance makes it certain that game graphics performance will be poor, unfortunatelly. not necessarily. i've seen low glxgears scores on systems that games still ran smoothly. The main concern is whether or not direct rendering is enabled. There is also a line that should be in xorg.conf for Radeon cards, although I can't remember exactly what it looks like at this time. 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.