nV News Forums

 
 

nV News Forums (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/index.php)
-   NVIDIA Linux (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   GeForce FX5600 glxgears benchmark (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=24813)

tudorv 02-12-04 09:42 PM

GeForce FX5600 glxgears benchmark
 
I'm curious what kind of FPS people get in glxgears with this card (or similar)? I get ~2500 FPS (1152x864, 24-bit, default glxgears window size), but I wonder if this is the optimum or there's something I do wrong?

Thanks!

mrblobby 02-13-04 12:11 AM

Hi there,

I get ~2400 fps with my Albatron FX5600EQ 128MB, but
am running 1600x1200x24-bit desk, so that may slow it a
little bit...

Kind regards, Chris W, New Zealand.

msch 02-13-04 11:53 PM

xfx 5600
 
hey, i'm only getting 1800 or so.
i'm running 1024x768, 1024x768 with twinview.

mrblobby 02-14-04 01:30 AM

Re: xfx 5600
 
Quote:

Originally posted by msch
hey, i'm only getting 1800 or so.
i'm running 1024x768, 1024x768 with twinview.

Twinview probably wont help that! :-)

I redid glxgears after closing netscape after posting my original reply, and I've
gone from 2400 to 2600 fps...Netscape is a greedy RAM/CPU hog! :-)

Kind regards,

Chris W, New Zealand.

sybourg 02-14-04 10:15 AM

Those are interesting figures, running at 1152x864 on my system I get around 2400-2500fps, at 1024x768 with back end processes turned off I get around 2700fps, thats in 32 bit colour. I'm running an Athlon 2000XP with 768mb mem and an 'old' ELSA Geforce 920 graphics card (basically a Geforce 3). :)

sybourg 02-14-04 10:32 AM

In fact, just logged in as root, set to 1152x864, 24bit (32 bit in above message was a typo) and re-run glxgears and got the following:

[root@sol001 root]# glxgears
11133 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2226.600 FPS
13710 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2742.000 FPS
13719 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2743.800 FPS
13715 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2743.000 FPS
[root@sol001 root]#

:)

Dunno where the FX5600 is position in relation to the old Ge-Force 3, what other settings are you guys running ? Aliasing etc ? I've got everything on driver defaults as installed. Perhaps its more that GLX doesnt push the cards to their limits so they are hitting a plateau of performance.

Gregor976 02-14-04 04:31 PM

Just for reference.. :)

GF4 4200 275/550
Barton @ 2Ghz
1GB 400mhz DDR

Kernel:
2.4.22-10mdk

NV driver 5328
1152x864x24

[lgregl@DR-EVIL lgregl]$ glxgears
18364 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3672.800 FPS
18569 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3713.800 FPS
18395 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3679.000 FPS
18625 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3725.000 FPS
18709 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3741.800 FPS
18304 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3660.800 FPS
18532 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3706.400 FPS
18228 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3645.600 FPS
X connection to :0.0 broken (explicit kill or server shutdown).
[lgregl@DR-EVIL lgregl]$

Incidently.. How do you stop glxgears without getting the x connection broken msg?
It seems pretty much cpu/memory limited.


Gregor

pzgren 02-15-04 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gregor976
Just for reference.. :)

[lgregl@DR-EVIL lgregl]$ glxgears
18364 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3672.800 FPS
18569 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3713.800 FPS
18395 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3679.000 FPS
18625 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3725.000 FPS
18709 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3741.800 FPS
18304 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3660.800 FPS
18532 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3706.400 FPS
18228 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3645.600 FPS
X connection to :0.0 broken (explicit kill or server shutdown).
[lgregl@DR-EVIL lgregl]$

Incidently.. How do you stop glxgears without getting the x connection broken msg?
It seems pretty much cpu/memory limited.
Gregor

With the upper left key named "Esc"? ;-)

But very slow. I get in the past with my old MSI GF4Ti4200 - 1.0-4496 Barton2800,
kernel 2.6:

[marcus@redtuxi marcus]$ glxgears
30844 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6168.800 FPS
31193 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6238.600 FPS
31192 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6238.400 FPS

with anisoptric filtering on! And now with a ASUS FX 5700 around ~4500fps
53.xx driver with an open firefox and nautilus file browser...

Maybe its the slow MDK XFree86/KDE? Fedora and Gentoo are a little faster, in my experiences...

Marcus

Thunderbird 02-15-04 05:24 AM

Really don't look at all these glxgears scores. Glxgears is not a good benchmark. It mainly draws some polygons to the screen. The results depend on lots of things (driver, cpu(!, yes a very fast gpu can create good scores too), videocard, kernel, resolution, depth ..). If you lets say get 3000 points and someone else gets 6000 points that won't say that ut2004 will run twice as fast on his box. Compare timedemo results of real games and not glxgears scores.

pzgren 02-15-04 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thunderbird
Really don't look at all these glxgears scores. Glxgears is not a good benchmark. It mainly draws some polygons to the screen. The results depend on lots of things (driver, cpu(!, yes a very fast gpu can create good scores too), videocard, kernel, resolution, depth ..). If you lets say get 3000 points and someone else gets 6000 points that won't say that ut2004 will run twice as fast on his box. Compare timedemo results of real games and not glxgears scores.
...and timedemo (with individual settings) results are not depending on: driver, cpu, gpu, kernel, color depth,... ;-) You have answered yourself... Yes, glxgears is very basic and not quite good for this.

And the performance is under Linux never the same if: A MDK user with overbloaded creaping KDE 3.x +22 kde-applets sucking the CPU/MEM and 33 daemons sleeping in the bg to suck more. When I came with a pure clean Fedora TWM desktop. :)

A better thing as bad timedemos and glxgears, because the Unreal engine depends most on the CPU, Q3/ET/Wolfenstein on the GPU maybe... a better way was this spec:

---> http://www.specbench.org/gpc/opc.sta...rf711info.html

Then we can perhaps make a nice and fair database here, with given attitudes and software and we do not have these threads in future?


Marcus:D

james 02-16-04 06:23 AM

To all who have posted their benchmarks, thanks, it confirms my suspicions that I am getting really bad framerates for glxgears from my FX5600. I had to replace a Ti4200 that went bad ( which used to get ~ 3600 fps without AGP enabled ), but my new 5600 only ever gets 500-580 fps! I've tried almost everythink I can think of or that I have seen on this board, but still no luck. I have used the 2.6.0, 2.6.1 , and 2.6.2 kernels with the 4620 and now 5336 drivers.

Here is a sample of glxgears:
poster@sirius:~> glxgears
2609 frames in 5.0 seconds = 521.800 FPS
2883 frames in 5.0 seconds = 576.600 FPS
2870 frames in 5.0 seconds = 574.000 FPS
2853 frames in 5.0 seconds = 570.600 FPS
2844 frames in 5.0 seconds = 568.800 FPS
2861 frames in 5.0 seconds = 572.200 FPS
2845 frames in 5.0 seconds = 569.000 FPS


Ouch!!

Well, I guess I'll just keep trying to tweak things, this can't be the best my card can do.

sybourg 02-16-04 07:51 AM

That really looks like its running in software mode - i.e. no hardware acceleration.

There is an nvidia utility somewhere which you can use to tell you what settings your card is running with - cant remember what it is and the machine I'm on at the moment doesnt have an nvidia card in it. Try searching the forums I'm sure I found it in there somewhere.

I've had problems before and found that completely uninstalling the graphics driver and reverting back to a 'normal' setup i.e. software mode, doing a full reboot and then running through the install process again can solve a few things. Make sure you uninstall the MesaGL(??) driver but not the MesaGL library (search the forums) as that can **** things up as well - I've seen linux default to running the software MesaGL driver instead of the nv driver when both are installed.

The machine I'm on at the mo, 1Ghz, ATI Rage 128 and software mode gets around 270fps.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:10 PM.

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