neddie Posted August 27, 2006 Report Share Posted August 27, 2006 I've grumbled about my poor graphics performance on Mandriva before, tried without success to install the Intel graphics drivers (something about APGPART), and then eventually gave up on it, assuming that it was my hardware not up to the job. And because it only really affects screensavers and TuxRacer I can live without it day to day. Then this week I've been playing a bit with a Xubuntu live cd, and coincidentally happened to notice that their screensavers are quite cool - simple 3d stuff but running smoothly. So I tracked down the package, installed the same ones on my Mandriva and they just chug and crawl. For example, the one called "Flurry" with the glowing trails, runs smooth and impressive from the Xubuntu cd (30+ fps) but is just a mess on Mandriva (3 or 4 fps). Same with the tile-slapping one called FlipFlop. So what's up? OK, so Xubuntu hasn't got KDE behind it, it uses Xfce which is much lighter, but still - it's running from a cd so it's got all its memory swallowed up just running the system - that should more than compensate for the KDE overhead. Could it be different drivers, later versions of stuff, or just a different config for X ? I looked at the xorg.conf used by Xubuntu and compared it with my Mandriva one - one obvious difference, is the Screen section: Mandriva says this: Section "Screen" Identifier "screen1" Device "device1" Monitor "monitor1" DefaultColorDepth 16 Subsection "Display" Depth 8 Virtual 1400 1050 EndSubsection Subsection "Display" Depth 15 Virtual 1400 1050 EndSubsection Subsection "Display" Depth 16 Virtual 1400 1050 EndSubsection Subsection "Display" Depth 24 Virtual 1400 1050 EndSubsection EndSection whereas Xubuntu says this: Section "Screen" Identifier "Default Screen" Device "Intel Corporation 82852/855GM Integrated Graphics Device" Monitor "Generic Monitor" DefaultDepth 16 SubSection "Display" Depth 1 Modes "1400x1050" EndSubSection SubSection "Display" Depth 4 Modes "1400x1050" EndSubSection SubSection "Display" Depth 8 Modes "1400x1050" EndSubSection SubSection "Display" Depth 15 Modes "1400x1050" EndSubSection SubSection "Display" Depth 16 Modes "1400x1050" EndSubSection SubSection "Display" Depth 24 Modes "1400x1050" EndSubSection EndSection Alas I don't understand what this config is doing, but could this "Modes" instead of "Virtual" be making the difference? Or is there anywhere else I could be looking for clues? [moved from Software by spinynorman] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniewicz Posted August 27, 2006 Report Share Posted August 27, 2006 Others more knowledgeable can specify why, but it is my understanding that the use of virtual display modes should not be an issue. On your Mandriva system, have a look in /var/log/Xorg.0.log or /var/log/messages for errors and warnings which are graphics related. What is the score from glxgears when running Mandriva vs Xubuntu? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neddie Posted August 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2006 Running glxgears in Mandriva in the little window gives 350-400 fps, and when maximized about 30. I haven't tried this in Xubuntu. I looked in /var/log/Xorg.0.log, almost everything looks clean and it mentions the right graphics set (Intel® 852GM/852GME/855GM//855GME Graphics Controller etc). The only thing which looks bad is this: (**) Option "dpms" (**) I810(0): DPMS enabled (II) I810(0): direct rendering: Failed A while ago I tried installing the rss screen savers (including Euphoria) on XP to see if they were reasonable there, but it was also horribly chuggy - hence why I'd got to assuming it was the hardware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniewicz Posted August 27, 2006 Report Share Posted August 27, 2006 On my Mandriva 2005 system running an old GeForce2 video card I see a glxgears score of 859. Your score of 350-400 is low. Perhaps you should post your xorg.conf? What do you get with these comands? cat /proc/driver/nvidia/agp/status cat /proc/driver/nvidia/agp/card cat /proc/driver/nvidia/agp/host-bridge My apologies if you have already been down this troubleshooting road before.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neddie Posted August 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2006 Hey, no apologies necessary!! I'll take all the help I can get! :D I just tried glxgears in Xubuntu, the version that comes included doesn't print out frame rates but I ran the Mdv version and it came up with about 1300 fps for the little window and about 100 for full screen. Significantly better than Mdv. I also looked in the glxinfo on there, and for Xubuntu it says at the top: name of display: :0.0display: :0 screen: 0 direct rendering: Yes whereas under Mdv it says at the top:name of display: :0.0Loading required GL library /usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1.4.502 display: :0 screen: 0 direct rendering: No However I don't have an nVidia card (it's just an integrated Intel 855 card) so I don't have a /proc/driver/nvidia directory, I just have a pktcdvd directory under /proc/driver/ I already posted what I thought was the most important bit of the xorg.conf above, I can post the lot if you want but it's quite big... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniewicz Posted August 27, 2006 Report Share Posted August 27, 2006 I suppose the reason direct rendering is indicating No is because you haven't installed the Intel graphics driver. Can you tell us more regarding what happened when you previously tried to install this driver unsuccessfully? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neddie Posted August 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2006 The original thread was here - basically it was complaining about AGPGART and another suggestion was that maybe my kernel source doesn't match my kernel - but then it looks like it does after all. And ianw had similar problems with agpgart since le2005, apparently. But then according to Scarecrow on the original thread, the Intel drivers wouldn't make much if any difference anyway, which was why I gave up on it. And I'm pretty sure that Xubuntu doesn't come with any Intel binaries builtin, so that can't be it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniewicz Posted August 27, 2006 Report Share Posted August 27, 2006 (edited) I would try to boot with a live Mandriva One DVD to see if it gives improved graphics capability like Xubuntu. If the Mandriva One gives better graphics, maybe we could find some Mandriva configuration hints? Edited August 27, 2006 by daniewicz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neddie Posted August 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2006 Good idea, I'm downloading it now and I'll report back. Strange there's no torrent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dexter11 Posted August 27, 2006 Report Share Posted August 27, 2006 When was Xubuntu released? Intel open sourced its drivers on the 9th of August see: http://intellinuxgraphics.org/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neddie Posted August 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2006 I'm using the 6.06 release from June. And that Intel release seems only for the new 965 chipset, not the older 855. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neddie Posted August 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2006 Much wootness! I got the Mandriva One live cd (doesn't look substantially different from my 2005LE), and after some faffing around with the config I finally persuaded it to show the native 1400x1050 resolution. And whaddaya know, it has glxgears scores like Xubuntu, and direct rendering:yes in the info! So I compared the xorg.conf files and made some changes to mine, and hey presto! Now you can really see the difference with the screen savers, but more importantly playing movies is much much better! :D Even my java3d apps are smoother. So thanks daniewicz, and thanks Xubuntu for drawing my attention to it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coverup Posted August 29, 2006 Report Share Posted August 29, 2006 Much wootness! I got the Mandriva One live cd (doesn't look substantially different from my 2005LE), and after some faffing around with the config I finally persuaded it to show the native 1400x1050 resolution. And whaddaya know, it has glxgears scores like Xubuntu, and direct rendering:yes in the info! So I compared the xorg.conf files and made some changes to mine, and hey presto! Now you can really see the difference with the screen savers, but more importantly playing movies is much much better! :D Even my java3d apps are smoother. So thanks daniewicz, and thanks Xubuntu for drawing my attention to it! Hey man, be fair! Tell us what you changed to fix it! I have 3d acceleration working with my Intel 865G card but glxgears gives only 790 FPS in a small window and 80 FPS in full screen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniewicz Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coverup Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 Yes, I tried that solution too, but no matter how much beer I consumed, performance of the graphic card remained invariably the same. 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.