aRTee Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirtaldon Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah31 Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 :roll: fps fps bah who the heck cares. you think your average game needs alot of fps. :roll: :P 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aRTee Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 Ok, so I shutdown last night, rebooted just now. No X Darn! /var/log/XF log file told me: (--) 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. $ 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: 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aRTee Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 Nope, that last bit with the low scores is full screen. No mouse/windows were being moved at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 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!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlc Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlc Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 Here we go: 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aRTee Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlc Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 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: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyv Posted August 1, 2003 Report Share Posted August 1, 2003 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: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlc Posted August 1, 2003 Report Share Posted August 1, 2003 How do I check While I'm in a game? 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlc Posted August 1, 2003 Report Share Posted August 1, 2003 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. 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyv Posted August 1, 2003 Report Share Posted August 1, 2003 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. 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.