Go Back   nV News Forums > Linux Support Forums > NVIDIA Linux

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-14-08, 05:55 AM   #85
NvFuchs
Registered Fox
 
NvFuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Posts: 530
Default Re: 8400M GS : Low performences

Quote:
Originally Posted by pawels133
Calling nvidia drivers stable is absurd. They maybe become stable and usable in few years.
Woah, I have drivers from the future!
Because they are stable, fast an usable.

Quote:
Compiz is very stable
Wrong, and compiz devs are aware of it.
Keep track of the gitweb on compiz-fusion as I do,
and you notice lots of fixes for memory leaks
and even stability stuff. Not in the fusion plugins,
but in compiz main.

Last stable marked release (0.7.4) just broke
Damage for some cube settings.

Not what i'd call stable.

Quote:
Stop trolling. Have you any proofs that Metacity is slow? It's in 95% nvidia fault. If you have nothing smart to say just shut up.
Just run gtkperf and compare the performance to other toolkits.
Just replace it with fluxbox / openbox / kwin in the same environment.

It is, compared to others, very slow.

Fuchs
NvFuchs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-08, 06:52 AM   #86
txf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 272
Default Re: 8400M GS : Low performences

Whilst I wouldn't call compiz stable, I have never seen major performance regressions when using it with the radeon driver in the various versions of compiz. Amusingly it works better with a radeon 9600 than a geforce 8600.

In theory when using compiz things should appear smoother in terms of window management. Firstly texture operations in opengl are more trivial for the gfx card than using uncomposited desktop. As a result less cpu is used when dragging, minimising windows etc.

The major problems with the slowness are due to gtk which depends on decent 2d acceleration. Unfortunately modern cards suck at it (at least in linux). That is why using xgl is faster for owners of 8 series cards.
txf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-08, 08:52 AM   #87
pawels133
Registered User
 
pawels133's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 201
Default Re: 8400M GS : Low performences

@NvFuchs

So, QT4 must be the slowest toolkit! LOL. It's much slower than GTK on my Geforce 6800. I have newest drivers and they're not fast, not stable and NOT usable with KDE4 (older ones were little better in some cases).
__________________
Not everybody can smoke and drink... xd
pawels133 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-08, 09:01 AM   #88
NvFuchs
Registered Fox
 
NvFuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Posts: 530
Default Re: 8400M GS : Low performences

Quote:
Originally Posted by pawels133
@NvFuchs

So, QT4 must be the slowest toolkit!
Possible. I have no Qt4 benchmark at hand,
but if you point me to one I can compare.

Funny thing is: gtk-engines-qt performs better
than any gtk-engine I got in gtkperf,
even tough there is a wrapper which should
slow things down ...


Quote:
LOL.
// no comment


Quote:
It's much slower than GTK on my Geforce 6800. I have newsest drivers and they're not fast, not stable and NOT usable with KDE4.
I don't have KDE4 at hand and can't be arsed to emerge the
whole thing, but when I tried it on a live system (!) it was
fast enough to work with, even though the system ran
from RAM / CD-R.

I also have some Qt4 Applications, and I don't think
they are slower compared to the load of Qt3 apps I use.

But again: point me to a reliable benchmark for Qt4
and I can provide you some numbers.

Any more comments on compiz being stable?

Fuchs
NvFuchs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-08, 09:24 AM   #89
pawels133
Registered User
 
pawels133's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 201
Default Re: 8400M GS : Low performences

Quote:
Possible. I have no Qt4 benchmark at hand,
but if you point me to one I can compare.
Just don't test any toolkits on nvidia crap please. Do this on Intel cards. KDE4 runs completely smooth even on Windows Vista. Nvidia Windows drivers are much better than Linux ones.

Quote:
But again: point me to a reliable benchmark for Qt4
and I can provide you some numbers.

Any more comments on compiz being stable?
Alright, if I find any. Compiz is very stable. Compiz-fusion is less stable, but it's ok.
__________________
Not everybody can smoke and drink... xd
pawels133 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-08, 09:33 AM   #90
NvFuchs
Registered Fox
 
NvFuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Posts: 530
Default Re: 8400M GS : Low performences

Quote:
Originally Posted by pawels133
Just don't test any toolkits on nvidia crap please.
Last time I checked I got neither nvidia crap nor intel GPUs,
just good hardware from nvidia with software I am happy with.
From nvidia.

Where are the links to the benchmarks?

Quote:
Do this on Intel cards. KDE4 runs completely smooth even on Windows Vista. Nvidia Windows drivers are much better than Linux ones.
And the snow is blue here.
No, I don't have to bring in any facts or proof,
my statement is already more than enough!
</sarcasm>

Again: give me benchmarks, I give you results.

I can provide you with gtkperf results at the moment,
one with a native gtk engine, one with gtk-engine-qt.

Quote:
Compiz is very stable. Compiz-fusion is less stable, but it's ok.
Just a guess: you don't even know the difference between them,
nor that c-f in fact uses a non-modified compiz but just
provides some plugins around it. Oh, those where the differences,
now you don't even have to search them by yourself.

Another guess: you never even saw compiz without
fusion around it.

Fuchs
NvFuchs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-08, 09:59 AM   #91
pawels133
Registered User
 
pawels133's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 201
Default Re: 8400M GS : Low performences

Quote:
Last time I checked I got neither nvidia crap nor intel GPUs,
just good hardware from nvidia with software I am happy with.
From nvidia.

Where are the links to the benchmarks?
You sounds like a troll. I'll give you some benchmarks when I'll reinstall my system.

Quote:
And the snow is blue here.
No, I don't have to bring in any facts or proof,
my statement is already more than enough!
Only blind wouldn't see a difference, but I'll give you proofs.

Quote:
Just a guess: you don't even know the difference between them,
nor that c-f in fact uses a non-modified compiz but just
provides some plugins around it. Oh, those where the differences,
now you don't even have to search them by yourself.
Heh, you're so funny. Compiz core is stable, but some plugins from compiz-fusion aren't.

Quote:
Another guess: you never even saw compiz without
fusion around it.
It seems that everything what you've already wrote about QT/GTK performance is just a guess. Another guess...

Just stop trolling until I'll reinstall my system and give you some proofs.
__________________
Not everybody can smoke and drink... xd
pawels133 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-08, 10:14 AM   #92
NvFuchs
Registered Fox
 
NvFuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Posts: 530
Default Re: 8400M GS : Low performences

Quote:
Originally Posted by pawels133
You sounds like a troll. I'll give you some benchmarks when I'll reinstall my system.
Why would you need a new installed system to give me
links to some benchmarks?

Quote:
Only blind wouldn't see a difference, but I'll give you proofs.
Jup, I am waiting. My results are at the bottom of this thread,
just to mention it ...

Quote:
Heh, you're so funny. Compiz core is stable,
Oh, of course it is.
Buffer overflow fix: 5 days ago
Damage fix: 7 days ago, broken in official release 0.7.4

Reading the gitweb, the compiz mailing list
and the bug list shows a different image,
but maybe your definition of stable is a bit special.

Quote:
It seems that everything what you've already wrote about QT/GTK performance is just a guess. Another guess...
Well, let me check

Code:
######################
Common Information: 
######################


Hardware

Lenovo Thinkpad R61

GPU:  nVidia quadro nvs 140m 
CPU:  Intel Core2Duo T7500 
RAM:  2 GB 


Software: 

Gentoo Linux 
2.6.24-r4 (tux on ice / gentoo patches) 
xorg-x11-7.2
xorg-server 1.3.0.0 

nvidia binary driver 171.06 
(self compiled with gcc 4.1.2) 

no optimisations 

nvidia device section:

        Identifier  "Videocard0"
        Driver      "nvidia"
        VendorName  "NVIDIA"
        BoardName   "NVIDIA Quadro NVS 140M"
        Option      "Coolbits"      "1"
        Option      "RenderAccel"   "true"
        Option      "UseEvents"     "false"
        Option      "TripleBuffer"  "1"
        Option      "DamageEvents"  "1"
        Option      "BackingStore"  "1"
        Option      "RandRRotation" "true
        Option      "AllowDDCCI"    "true"
        Option      "UseEdidFreqs"  "false"
        Option      "NvAGP"         "1"

InitialPixmapPlacement=1 
GlyphCache=1


######################
GTKPerf:  (100 runs) 
######################

*******************************************
Clearlooks: 

GtkPerf 0.40 - Starting testing: Mon Apr 14 17:02:20 2008

GtkEntry - time:  0.03
GtkComboBox - time:  2.01
GtkComboBoxEntry - time:  2.01
GtkSpinButton - time:  0.36
GtkProgressBar - time:  0.41
GtkToggleButton - time:  0.89
GtkCheckButton - time:  0.69
GtkRadioButton - time:  0.93
GtkTextView - Add text - time:  0.58
GtkTextView - Scroll - time:  0.58
GtkDrawingArea - Lines - time:  0.71
GtkDrawingArea - Circles - time:  0.91
GtkDrawingArea - Text - time:  0.52
GtkDrawingArea - Pixbufs - time:  0.05
 --- 
Total time: 10.69
******************************************


******************************************
GTK-Engines-QT:

GtkPerf 0.40 - Starting testing: Mon Apr 14 17:13:35 2008

GtkEntry - time:  0.02
GtkComboBox - time:  1.94
GtkComboBoxEntry - time:  1.48
GtkSpinButton - time:  0.14
GtkProgressBar - time:  0.23
GtkToggleButton - time:  0.46
GtkCheckButton - time:  0.58
GtkRadioButton - time:  0.84
GtkTextView - Add text - time:  0.57
GtkTextView - Scroll - time:  0.66
GtkDrawingArea - Lines - time:  0.62
GtkDrawingArea - Circles - time:  0.88
GtkDrawingArea - Text - time:  0.49
GtkDrawingArea - Pixbufs - time:  0.03
 --- 
Total time:  8.95

******************************************
GTK-Engines-Qt with vesa 

GtkPerf 0.40 - Starting testing: Mon Apr 14 17:36:06 2008

GtkEntry - time:  0.03
GtkComboBox - time:  1.51
GtkComboBoxEntry - time:  1.09
GtkSpinButton - time:  0.16
GtkProgressBar - time:  0.16
GtkToggleButton - time:  0.33
GtkCheckButton - time:  0.33
GtkRadioButton - time:  0.50
GtkTextView - Add text - time:  0.76
GtkTextView - Scroll - time:  0.54
GtkDrawingArea - Lines - time:  0.57
GtkDrawingArea - Circles - time:  1.09
GtkDrawingArea - Text - time:  1.00
GtkDrawingArea - Pixbufs - time:  0.02
 --- 
Total time:  8.09
GTKPerf is http://gtkperf.sourceforge.net/index.php
unfortunately the results by the author are rather old,
but interesting anyway:

http://gtkperf.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=testing

Now what?
Just as a small sidenote:

The nvs140m is a G84M, guess what,
this is a 8400G mobile ... now read the thread title.

I don't think those results are bad.
Searching the forums I found better results
(~ 4 secs), but most of them on better hardware
(this is a 128 MB + shared memory nvs140m)
and there are lots of worse results.


Quote:
Just stop trolling until I'll reinstall my system and give you some proofs.
Still waiting, in the meantime you might want to read
the definition of trolling.

Thanks in advance,

Fuchs
NvFuchs is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-08, 12:30 PM   #93
txf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 272
Default Re: 8400M GS : Low performences

Quote:
Originally Posted by NvFuchs
I don't have KDE4 at hand and can't be arsed to emerge the
whole thing, but when I tried it on a live system (!) it was
fast enough to work with, even though the system ran
from RAM / CD-R.
Fuchs
If tried it live then you were probably using either vesa or nv, right?

well it should be faster with nv (dunno about vesa) than it is with nvidia. The fact that it is faster under xephyr or xnest points to problem with acceleration. Mind you I only tried this with kde4.0.x and not with trunk (which is much improved in some ways, but not in others).

In terms of speed I'm merely referring to Qt painting performance, overall kde4 is much faster esp. startup times.

I noticed that you have pixmap placement at 1 and glyph cache enabled. I thought that pixmaps had to be created on gfx mem for the glyph cache to work? how does it compare to ipp at 2.

P.S. I noticed that your vesa scores are quite similar to your accelerated scores. I suggest you try xrenderbenchmark

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...ch/013918.html

it uses qt4 to test xrender. Obviously it is a synthetic benchmark but I haven't seen any results of mobile and non beefy gfx cards.

I would be really interested in your scores.



P.P.S. It can take a long time to complete.
txf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-08, 12:36 PM   #94
NvFuchs
Registered Fox
 
NvFuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Posts: 530
Default Re: 8400M GS : Low performences

Quote:
Originally Posted by txf
If tried it live then you were probably using either vesa or nv, right?
Nope, installed nvidia binary driver because this
is simpler than fiddling around with modelines to get
the 1440x900 resolution of my notebook.

Quote:
In terms of speed I'm merely referring to Qt painting performance, overall kde4 is much faster esp. startup times.
I was talking about painting performance as well,
startup times are usually rather bad on live systems.
However, I did not try out each and every effect out there,
so it is rather basic performance
(drawing windows and contents)

As for glyph cache: jup, might be that this setting
is useless by now. I tried it with InitialPixmapPlacement=2,
but this is really slow on some operations on this (notebook, turbocache) GPU,
so I switched to InitialPixmapPlacement=1 which gave me some
performance boosts in compiz, e.g. window title update (emeral) on window maximize.

Edit:
(If you have more to say: don't use edit please, I wont reread this thread
much if there is nothing new going on, so I don't see your new request)

XRender benchmark, aborted after a while
(for full results: maybe tomorrow, until then I need to
work on this notebook and can't do longer tests)

Code:
fuchs@thinkfox xrenderbenchmark $ ./xrenderbenchmark
X Server from: The X.Org Foundation, Release: 10300000
        Xrender version: 0.10
---------------------------------------------
Test: PictOpClear
                 Plain............................................ Time: 0.052 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 0.047 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 0.634 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 0.653 sec.
Test: PictOpSrc
                 Plain............................................ Time: 0.011 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 0.020 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 0.659 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 0.941 sec.
Test: PictOpDst
                 Plain............................................ Time: 0.000 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 0.000 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 0.000 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 0.000 sec.
Test: PictOpOver
                 Plain............................................ Time: 0.014 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 0.033 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 0.691 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 0.966 sec.
Test: PictOpOverReverse
                 Plain............................................ Time: 0.000 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 0.000 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 0.000 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 0.000 sec.
Test: PictOpIn
                 Plain............................................ Time: 0.012 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 0.014 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 0.702 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 0.921 sec.
Test: PictOpInReverse
                 Plain............................................ Time: 0.001 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 0.015 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 0.001 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 0.000 sec.
Test: PictOpOut
                 Plain............................................ Time: 0.017 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 0.012 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 0.639 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 0.637 sec.
Test: PictOpOutReverse
                 Plain............................................ Time: 0.020 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 0.024 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 0.625 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 0.630 sec.
Test: PictOpAtop
                 Plain............................................ Time: 0.012 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 0.017 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 0.643 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 0.920 sec.
Test: PictOpAtopReverse
                 Plain............................................ Time: 0.000 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 0.017 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 0.000 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 0.000 sec.
Test: PictOpXor
                 Plain............................................ Time: 0.013 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 0.023 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 0.642 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 0.632 sec.
Test: PictOpAdd
                 Plain............................................ Time: 0.023 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 0.024 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 12.069 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 12.340 sec.
Test: PictOpSaturate
                 Plain............................................ Time: 11.967 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 12.014 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 12.028 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 12.740 sec.
Test: PictOpDisjointClear
                 Plain............................................ Time: 0.021 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 0.043 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 0.669 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 0.660 sec.
Test: PictOpDisjointSrc
                 Plain............................................ Time: 0.012 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 0.012 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 0.635 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 0.912 sec.
Test: PictOpDisjointDst
                 Plain............................................ Time: 0.000 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 0.000 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 0.000 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 0.000 sec.
Test: PictOpDisjointOver
                 Plain............................................ Time: 11.917 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 12.102 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 11.696 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 12.382 sec.
Test: PictOpDisjointOverReverse
                 Plain............................................ Time: 11.924 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 12.007 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 11.954 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 12.809 sec.
Test: PictOpDisjointIn
                 Plain............................................ Time: 12.380 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 12.317 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 12.366 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 12.618 sec.
Test: PictOpDisjointInReverse
                 Plain............................................ Time: 11.918 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 12.407 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 12.154 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 12.823 sec.
Test: PictOpDisjointOut
                 Plain............................................ Time: 12.414 sec.
                 Plain With Alpha................................. Time: 12.441 sec.
                 Transformation................................... Time: 12.143 sec.
                 Transformation/Bilinear filter................... Time: 12.689

Fuchs
NvFuchs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-08, 06:46 AM   #95
pawels133
Registered User
 
pawels133's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 201
Default Re: 8400M GS : Low performences

I did some tests:

nvidia

GtkPerf 0.40 - Starting testing: Tue Apr 15 13:19:37 2008

GtkEntry - time: 0.29
GtkComboBox - time: 7.19
GtkComboBoxEntry - time: 6.50
GtkSpinButton - time: 1.41
GtkProgressBar - time: 0.99
GtkToggleButton - time: 2.19
GtkCheckButton - time: 2.22
GtkRadioButton - time: 3.02
GtkTextView - Add text - time: 2.66
GtkTextView - Scroll - time: 2.11
GtkDrawingArea - Lines - time: 0.99
GtkDrawingArea - Circles - time: 1.32
GtkDrawingArea - Text - time: 2.57
GtkDrawingArea - Pixbufs - time: 0.46
---
Total time: 33.94

nv

GtkPerf 0.40 - Starting testing: Tue Apr 15 13:24:09 2008

GtkEntry - time: 0.31
GtkComboBox - time: 7.19
GtkComboBoxEntry - time: 6.43
GtkSpinButton - time: 1.42
GtkProgressBar - time: 1.04
GtkToggleButton - time: 6.84
GtkCheckButton - time: 2.28
GtkRadioButton - time: 3.08
GtkTextView - Add text - time: 4.41
GtkTextView - Scroll - time: 2.35
GtkDrawingArea - Lines - time: 0.92
GtkDrawingArea - Circles - time: 1.25
GtkDrawingArea - Text - time: 11.14
GtkDrawingArea - Pixbufs - time: 1.79
---
Total time: 50.47

vesa

GtkPerf 0.40 - Starting testing: Tue Apr 15 13:35:41 2008

GtkEntry - time: 0.32
GtkComboBox - time: 7.51
GtkComboBoxEntry - time: 6.78
GtkSpinButton - time: 1.42
GtkProgressBar - time: 1.02
GtkToggleButton - time: 2.32
GtkCheckButton - time: 2.39
GtkRadioButton - time: 3.22
GtkTextView - Add text - time: 2.80
GtkTextView - Scroll - time: 2.31
GtkDrawingArea - Lines - time: 2.74
GtkDrawingArea - Circles - time: 5.28
GtkDrawingArea - Text - time: 4.44
GtkDrawingArea - Pixbufs - time: 0.42
---
Total time: 42.99

gtk-engines-qt, 173.08. Have you anything smart to say now (but without nvidia fanboy bull**** please)? Is 33.94secs alright using nvidia binary driver? LOL. Using 169.12 it was 27 secs which is very slow. I'll do some testing with Intel card too which performs much better in KDE4.
__________________
Not everybody can smoke and drink... xd
pawels133 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-08, 02:31 PM   #96
NvFuchs
Registered Fox
 
NvFuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Posts: 530
Default Re: 8400M GS : Low performences

Quote:
Originally Posted by pawels133
I did some tests:

nvidia
---
Total time: 33.94

nv
---
Total time: 50.47

vesa
---
Total time: 42.99

Have you anything smart to say now
Jup:
1) without giving any informations on the settings
you used the results are useless.

For 1000 runs these results would be fine, yes.

2) the closed source driver outperforms
both of the open drivers. With a big difference.
Now what about you telling the css driver
is crap, compared to open ones,

just to quote you:
"open, high quality drivers."

You called nvidia drivers "crappy" several times,
sorry mate, but look at the results.

I'd call the other drivers crappy.

Quote:
(but without nvidia fanboy bull**** please)?
polite as ever, and yes, of course it is fanboy bull****
when I experience good, stable drivers,
working suspend, fast 3D acceleration, decent 2D accelerations ...

Quote:
Is 33.94secs alright using nvidia binary driver?
yes.
For 1000 runs, at least. Again, you never told me
what settings you used, so your results are useless.

Quote:
LOL. Using 169.12 it was 27 secs which is very slow.
Compared to?
Then what are the nv and vesa results,
if 27 seconds (+/- half the time vesa needs)
are very slow?

Quote:
I'll do some testing with Intel card too which performs much better in KDE4.
Again, at the moment you can state what you want,
let me see some intel results (and if I get my hands
on an Intel card I'll run some benchmarks by myself,
with sane Xorg settings in a sane environment) please.

Fuchs
NvFuchs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
8800 GT and Ubuntu - Plymouth low resolution legluondunet NVIDIA Linux 3 06-24-12 03:22 PM
Video: Achieving Ultra-low Latency in the Cloud: How Low Can We Go? News Archived News Items 0 06-18-12 04:40 AM
Sluggish performance 8400M GS Ubuntu 12.04 Unity 3D bgneal NVIDIA Linux 1 05-24-12 06:16 PM
OCZ Releases Low Profile Version of Vertex 3 News Archived News Items 0 05-18-12 09:30 PM
Low OpenGL Performance Instinct NVIDIA Linux 10 08-08-02 03:56 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:49 AM.


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