nV News Forums

 
 

nV News Forums (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/index.php)
-   NVIDIA Linux (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Performance Regressions within NVIDIA 260.x (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=154894)

MakotoTheKnight 09-08-10 02:34 PM

Performance Regressions within NVIDIA 260.x
 
2 Attachment(s)
I've noticed a major performance regression when moving from 195.36.24 to the latest beta driver 260.19.04. Attached is a log output, as well as two gtkperf files to outline the regressions.

The most prevalent regression I've noticed is that performance seems to be very poor, even when PowerMizer is using the highest profile available, and even with AA disabled. Opening the main menu in Ubuntu (different than the giant "Menu Bar") doesn't "feel" the same in 260.19.04, and OpenGL applications appear to be running slower than normal.

Card: NVIDIA GT240 512MB
OS: Ubuntu 10.04 LTS 64-bit
Memory: 8GB
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ @2.7GHz

For the time being, I've reverted to 195.36.24, as the newer offerings (even 256.53 stable) seem to be suffering from this issue.

Licaon 09-08-10 07:28 PM

Re: Performance Regressions within NVIDIA 260.x
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MakotoTheKnight (Post 2314971)
I've noticed a major performance regression when moving from 195.36.24 to the latest beta driver 260.19.04. Attached is a log output, as well as two gtkperf files to outline the regressions.

any 3D regressions too? Ungine Tropics/Sanctuary/Heaven ?

MakotoTheKnight 09-09-10 01:51 PM

Re: Performance Regressions within NVIDIA 260.x
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Licaon (Post 2315128)
any 3D regressions too? Ungine Tropics/Sanctuary/Heaven ?

I've not looked at the benchmarks for any of those, but it does feel that OpenGL games have suffered slightly (with 4xAA enabled). I think that, if I get more time over the weekend, I'll look into benchmarking that.

taccoboss 09-12-10 06:36 PM

Re: Performance Regressions within NVIDIA 260.x
 
i tested it on an Nvidia Quadro 4600 fx and it really sucks! Congrats!

dk75 09-16-10 03:41 PM

Re: Performance Regressions within NVIDIA 260.x
 
And I tested it on Atom/ION and it seems to be lil bit faster or it is measurement error (4-5% of difference)
http://tinyurl.com/325obkt

Text result
Code:

Unigine Sanctuary - nVidia 195.36.24 vs. nVidia 260.19.06
unigine-sanctuary - 1.5.0This test calculates the average frame-rate within the Sanctuary demo for the Unigine engine. This engine is very demanding on the system's graphics card.


Unigine Sanctuary - nVidia 195.36.24:

        Processor: Intel Atom CPU 330 @ 1.60GHz (Total Cores: 4)
        Motherboard: Unknown
        Chipset: nVidia MCP79
        Memory: 3019MB
        Disk: 500GB Hitachi HDP72505
        Graphics: ION 512MB (450MHz)
        Audio: Realtek ALC662 rev1

        OS: Ubuntu 9.10
        Kernel: 2.6.32-22-generic (x86_64)
        Desktop: GNOME 2.28.1
        Display Server: X.Org Server 1.6.4
        Display Driver: nvidia 195.36.24
        OpenGL: 3.2.0
        Compiler: GCC 4.4.1
        File-System: ext4
        Screen Resolution: 1920x1080



Unigine Sancutary - nVidia 260.19.06:

        Processor: Intel Atom CPU 330 @ 1.60GHz (Total Cores: 4)
        Motherboard: Unknown
        Chipset: nVidia MCP79
        Memory: 3019MB
        Disk: 500GB Hitachi HDP72505
        Graphics: ION 512MB (450/800MHz)
        Audio: Realtek ALC662 rev1

        OS: Ubuntu 9.10
        Kernel: 2.6.32-22-generic (x86_64)
        Desktop: GNOME 2.28.1
        Display Server: X.Org Server 1.6.4
        Display Driver: nvidia 260.19.06
        OpenGL: 3.3.0
        Compiler: GCC 4.4.1
        File-System: ext4
        Screen Resolution: 1920x1080



Unigine Sanctuary 2.3
Resolution: 800 x 600
Unigine Sanctuary - nVidia 195.36.24: 10.14
Unigine Sancutary - nVidia 260.19.06: 10.62

Unigine Sanctuary 2.3
Resolution: 1024 x 768
Unigine Sanctuary - nVidia 195.36.24: 7.56
Unigine Sancutary - nVidia 260.19.06: 7.90

Unigine Sanctuary 2.3
Resolution: 1280 x 960
Unigine Sanctuary - nVidia 195.36.24: 5.56
Unigine Sancutary - nVidia 260.19.06: 5.76

Unigine Sanctuary 2.3
Resolution: 1440 x 900
Unigine Sanctuary - nVidia 195.36.24: 5.35
Unigine Sancutary - nVidia 260.19.06: 5.54

Unigine Sanctuary 2.3
Resolution: 1280 x 1024
Unigine Sanctuary - nVidia 195.36.24: 5.31
Unigine Sancutary - nVidia 260.19.06: 5.46

Unigine Sanctuary 2.3
Resolution: 1400 x 1050
Unigine Sanctuary - nVidia 195.36.24: 4.89
Unigine Sancutary - nVidia 260.19.06: 5.07

Unigine Sanctuary 2.3
Resolution: 1680 x 1050
Unigine Sanctuary - nVidia 195.36.24: 4.24
Unigine Sancutary - nVidia 260.19.06: 4.38

Unigine Sanctuary 2.3
Resolution: 1920 x 1080
Unigine Sanctuary - nVidia 195.36.24: 3.75
Unigine Sancutary - nVidia 260.19.06: 3.86


taccoboss 09-17-10 07:31 AM

Re: Performance Regressions within NVIDIA 260.x
 
i tested 260.19.06 driver on Ubuntu 10.04 and it still sucks a lot (Nvidia quadro 4600fx). Linux is a mistery for you! It would be better to do an open source driver.....i bet that Nvidia Tegra 2 driver for Android will be a lot better! eheheh....you like money!

Licaon 09-17-10 02:26 PM

Re: Performance Regressions within NVIDIA 260.x
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by taccoboss (Post 2319871)
i tested 260.19.06 driver on Ubuntu 10.04 and it still sucks a lot (Nvidia quadro 4600fx). Linux is a mistery for you! It would be better to do an open source driver.....i bet that Nvidia Tegra 2 driver for Android will be a lot better! eheheh....you like money!

comparison info between driver versions ?

dk75 09-17-10 02:29 PM

Re: Performance Regressions within NVIDIA 260.x
 
Today is Unigine Tropics - http://tinyurl.com/3ajng5z

Text results (5-6% for 260 series)
Code:

Unigine Tropics - nVidia 195.36.24 vs. nVidia 260.19.06
unigine-tropics - 1.5.0This test calculates the average frame-rate within the Tropics / Islands demo for the Unigine engine. This engine is very demanding on the system's graphics card.


nVidia 195.36.24:

        Processor: Intel Atom CPU 330 @ 1.60GHz (Total Cores: 4)
        Motherboard: Unknown
        Chipset: nVidia MCP79
        Memory: 3019MB
        Disk: 500GB Hitachi HDP72505
        Graphics: ION 512MB (450MHz)
        Audio: Realtek ALC662 rev1

        OS: Ubuntu 9.10
        Kernel: 2.6.32-22-generic (x86_64)
        Desktop: GNOME 2.28.1
        Display Server: X.Org Server 1.6.4
        Display Driver: nvidia 195.36.24
        OpenGL: 3.2.0
        Compiler: GCC 4.4.1
        File-System: ext4
        Screen Resolution: 1920x1080


nVidia 260.19.06:

        Processor: Intel Atom CPU 330 @ 1.60GHz (Total Cores: 4)
        Motherboard: Unknown
        Chipset: nVidia MCP79
        Memory: 3019MB
        Disk: 500GB Hitachi HDP72505
        Graphics: ION 512MB (450/800MHz)
        Audio: Realtek ALC662 rev1

        OS: Ubuntu 9.10
        Kernel: 2.6.32-22-generic (x86_64)
        Desktop: GNOME 2.28.1
        Display Server: X.Org Server 1.6.4
        Display Driver: nvidia 260.19.06
        OpenGL: 3.3.0
        Compiler: GCC 4.4.1
        File-System: ext4
        Screen Resolution: 1920x1080



Unigine Tropics 1.3
Resolution: 800 x 600
        nVidia 195.36.24: 8.28
        nVidia 260.19.06: 8.81

Unigine Tropics 1.3
Resolution: 1024 x 768
        nVidia 195.36.24: 6.67
        nVidia 260.19.06: 7.08

Unigine Tropics 1.3
Resolution: 1280 x 960
        nVidia 195.36.24: 5.16
        nVidia 260.19.06: 5.48

Unigine Tropics 1.3
Resolution: 1440 x 900
        nVidia 195.36.24: 4.98
        nVidia 260.19.06: 5.29

Unigine Tropics 1.3
Resolution: 1280 x 1024
        nVidia 195.36.24: 4.99
        nVidia 260.19.06: 5.25

Unigine Tropics 1.3
Resolution: 1400 x 1050
        nVidia 195.36.24: 4.65
        nVidia 260.19.06: 4.94

Unigine Tropics 1.3
Resolution: 1680 x 1050
        nVidia 195.36.24: 4.05
        nVidia 260.19.06: 4.30

Unigine Tropics 1.3
Resolution: 1920 x 1080
        nVidia 195.36.24: 3.62
        nVidia 260.19.06: 3.82


PS: I don't know if it matters but there is my xorg.conf
Code:

Section "ServerLayout"
    Identifier                "Layout0"
    Screen        0        "Screen0"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
    Identifier                "Sharp0"
    VendorName                "Sharp"
    ModelName                "SHARP HDMI"
    HorizSync                15.0 - 75.0
    VertRefresh                49.0 - 76.0
EndSection

Section "Device"
    Identifier                "ION"
    Driver                "nvidia"
    VendorName                "NVIDIA Corporation"
    Option                "Nologo"                "True"
    Option                "Coolbits"                "1"
EndSection

Section "Screen"
    Identifier                "Screen0"
    Device                "ION"
    Monitor                "Sharp0"
    DefaultDepth        24
    Option                "TripleBuffer"                "True"
    Option                "DPI"                        "70 x 70"
    Option                "TwinView"                "0"
    Option                "metamodes"                "1920x1080_60 +0+0; nvidia-auto-select +0+0; 1920x1080 +0+0"
    SubSection "Display"
        Depth                24
    EndSubSection
EndSection

and I added nvidia-settings -l (lowercase letter L) to my profile session autoload settings to load nvidia-settings.rc at every GNOME login.

MakotoTheKnight 09-17-10 02:43 PM

Re: Performance Regressions within NVIDIA 260.x
 
The regressions likely stem from 2D performance rather than 3D. To my understanding, GTKPerf doesn't make use of anything 3D in its benchmark, and that was my biggest concern.

dk75 09-17-10 04:24 PM

Re: Performance Regressions within NVIDIA 260.x
 
GTKPerf for 195 and 260
Code:

195: GtkPerf 0.40 - Starting testing: Fri Sep 17 22:58:52 2010
260: GtkPerf 0.40 - Starting testing: Fri Sep 17 21:57:50 2010

195: GtkEntry - time:  0,70
260: GtkEntry - time:  0,66

195: GtkComboBox - time:  7,94
260: GtkComboBox - time:  7,34

195: GtkComboBoxEntry - time:  7,01
260: GtkComboBoxEntry - time:  5,87

195: GtkSpinButton - time:  1,02
260: GtkSpinButton - time:  0,69

195: GtkProgressBar - time:  0,68
260: GtkProgressBar - time:  0,69

195: GtkToggleButton - time:  1,09
260: GtkToggleButton - time:  1,04

195: GtkCheckButton - time:  0,43
260: GtkCheckButton - time:  0,45

195: GtkRadioButton - time:  0,51
260: GtkRadioButton - time:  0,51

195: GtkTextView - Add text - time:  2,75
260: GtkTextView - Add text - time:  2,70

195: GtkTextView - Scroll - time:  1,10
260: GtkTextView - Scroll - time:  1,01

195: GtkDrawingArea - Lines - time:  1,80
260: GtkDrawingArea - Lines - time:  1,69

195: GtkDrawingArea - Circles - time:  2,59
260: GtkDrawingArea - Circles - time:  2,52

195: GtkDrawingArea - Text - time:  1,19
260: GtkDrawingArea - Text - time:  1,13

195: GtkDrawingArea - Pixbufs - time:  0,38
260: GtkDrawingArea - Pixbufs - time:  0,31
 ---
195: Total time: 29,22
260: Total time: 26,64


PS: Unigine Heaven 195 vs. 260 - http://tinyurl.com/332t5um

taccoboss 09-20-10 04:38 AM

Re: Performance Regressions within NVIDIA 260.x
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by taccoboss (Post 2319871)
i tested 260.19.06 driver on Ubuntu 10.04 and it still sucks a lot (Nvidia quadro 4600fx). Linux is a mistery for you! It would be better to do an open source driver.....i bet that Nvidia Tegra 2 driver for Android will be a lot better! eheheh....you like money!



ummmmm......i tried 260.19.06 driver with some games and now graphics seem better...i like it.....and i want a stable version!

Guilo19 09-20-10 10:33 AM

Re: Performance Regressions within NVIDIA 260.x
 
For me 260.x gives very bad performance with vdpau. Very slow whereas everything was smooth using 195.X. I have 8400M.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.