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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-10-03, 01:40 PM   #37
bwkaz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,262
Default

Yes, glxgears uses a high percentage of the CPU (on my machine, it's actually closer to 70%). But the reason for that is, after all, that it's spinning in a very tight loop, all the time, just calling GL functions (and not many of them at that... the gears are, after all, quite simple).

If you sync to vblank, you may reduce CPU load, though I don't know for sure if the drivers still implement the syncing with a busy-wait (they might). If they don't, then your load will definitely drop.

And in terms of GL games, well, the same thing is going on. The game is performing how many calculations per frame? And how many frames per second? That's where your high usage is coming from.
__________________
Registered Linux User #219692
bwkaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-03, 11:47 AM   #38
geovah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 8
Default

I everybody, i have to make some remark to you :

GForce2 MX-400+ intel BX chipset = 4000 fps in glxgears.
Same configuration but replace mobo + proc + network + snd card with a nf7-s said only 800 fps.... beurk !

Under ut2003, look at http://www.tomshardware.fr/article3d...=220&NumPage=5 (yes in french but i think you can understand). I have an athlon o/c to 2Ghz with busclock at 166, and i make same score...

I think glxgears is not a viable test, anyone can confirm with a test of ut2003 ?
geovah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-03, 12:25 PM   #39
bwkaz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,262
Default

So... are you using the same processor in both motherboards? I seriously doubt it, since BX boards don't take Athlon processors, and you're saying something later about an Athlon...

Please, compare apples to apples with glxgears. Even a P2-2GHz is not the same as an Athlon XP OC'ed to 2GHz. Clock speed indications to the contrary.
__________________
Registered Linux User #219692
bwkaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-03, 12:57 PM   #40
geovah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 8
Default

Yes of course, it is between a PIII 500Mhz with the intel 440BX ...

I don't understand you remark about difference between P4(2?)-2GHZ and my Athlon 2GHZ ???

For me glxgears could show difference of opengl driver/graphic card with remark said in last thread.
And i said that the glxgears is not viable because :
-a PIII 500Mhz make 4000 fps
-a Athlon XP 2 Ghz make 800 fps

But with the ut2003 test, i make the SAME score than a benchmark on a french hardware site with the same machine (Athlon o/c to 2Ghz with NF7-S /512Mo/Linux Mdk9.0 vs Athlon XP 2700+/512Mo/Windows). My conclusion is that glxgears seems to be buggy...

All message from beginnig said that are low score with glxgears, like me but for me ut2003 seems to work ... So i think that driver is not the cause of trouble. And i ask anybody to make the test to see if he can have the same result

PS : Where as my english is bad, you can understand me ? In case of not, speak french with me....
geovah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-03, 01:39 PM   #41
bwkaz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,262
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by geovah
I don't understand you remark about difference between P4(2?)-2GHZ and my Athlon 2GHZ ???
I'm just saying that even though they would appear to have the same clock speed, they are not equivalent. Benchmarks on each of them are not necessarily going to come up with the same score. The Athlon, for example, uses advanced speculative caching (well... it will, as soon as a working AGP driver for the Linux kernel is written that doesn't require that feature to be turned off) to increase its effective speed.

Quote:
PS : Where as my english is bad, you can understand me ? In case of not, speak french with me....
I can understand you pretty well, yes. On the other hand, I know zero French, so ... yeah. That would be a disaster.
__________________
Registered Linux User #219692
bwkaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-03, 10:43 PM   #42
how
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 142
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by geovah
Yes of course, it is between a PIII 500Mhz with the intel 440BX ...

I don't understand you remark about difference between P4(2?)-2GHZ and my Athlon 2GHZ ???

For me glxgears could show difference of opengl driver/graphic card with remark said in last thread.
And i said that the glxgears is not viable because :
-a PIII 500Mhz make 4000 fps
-a Athlon XP 2 Ghz make 800 fps

But with the ut2003 test, i make the SAME score than a benchmark on a french hardware site with the same machine (Athlon o/c to 2Ghz with NF7-S /512Mo/Linux Mdk9.0 vs Athlon XP 2700+/512Mo/Windows). My conclusion is that glxgears seems to be buggy...

All message from beginnig said that are low score with glxgears, like me but for me ut2003 seems to work ... So i think that driver is not the cause of trouble. And i ask anybody to make the test to see if he can have the same result

PS : Where as my english is bad, you can understand me ? In case of not, speak fre
nch with me....
glxgear is not buggy. Not only glxgears is slow with Gf2 mx but the rest of other gl programs are too. fps lagging in quake3 and ut2003. even at low res.
how is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-03, 06:01 AM   #43
thyrihad
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2
Default Same prob

I have the same prob:

Athlon 1GHz, 512MB CL3 RAM, Gentoo (devfs), GeForce 2 MX400 64MB:

=======================
--- NvClock v0.6.2 ---
=======================

-- General info --
Card: nVidia Geforce 2 MX/MX400
PCI id: 0x110
GPU speed: 174.997 MHz
Bustype: AGP

-- Memory info --
Amount: 64 MB
Type: 128 bit SDR
Speed: 143.180 MHz

-- AGP info --
Status: Enabled
Rate: 4X
AGP rates: 1X 2X 4X
Fast Writes: Enabled
SBA: Unsupported, Disabled

-------

glxgears:
1272 frames in 5.0 seconds = 254.400 FPS
1241 frames in 5.0 seconds = 248.200 FPS

and it uses 100% CPU usage when doing this.

This can't be normal :/
Quake3 is about 15-20 FPS @ 512x384 16bit

Don't know what else to try.
thyrihad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-03, 06:15 AM   #44
jongew
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 13
Default aha

so it has nothing to do with fastwrites, enabled in your case and still crappy performance. the thread is as god as dead, and the nvidia guy didn't reply to it properly, so i guess it's either forgotten (busy guy) or in progress.

pick your favorite choice... none?

good luck
jongew is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 05-21-03, 07:21 PM   #45
Arach
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 17
Default Something close?

okay, I appear to be one of the lucky(ermh) kt400 owners, athlon tbird 1050MHz and a GeForce4 MX440 64Mb card, and I see barely any improvement above your performance here...

720 fps at 24bit (32bit fbpp)
Arach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-03, 10:03 PM   #46
Pez
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2
Default

Have the same issue with my nforce2 system as you mentioned above. I am stuck at roughly the 400fps mark. Can't be right at all for glxgears, since I get some 70-75 fps in games using Windows 2000 Pro. All libraries and modules are correct, and it's the latest drivers.

Specs are Athlon XP1600+ (at 1.9GHz), 512Mb RAM 3-2-2 CL2 at 190FSB, MSI K7N2G-L mobo with internal GF3.5 (it's not really a GF4) mx set to utilize 128Mb of RAM.

It outta be faster than that even though it is an internal GPU using the RAM at 'only' 190FSB

(Oh, and my 1280x960-mode disappeared when I updated the drivers to the latest version. It doesn't matter if I do the "NoBandWidthTest" or not. And, where is that nforce2-update? IDE-performance is baaad, man, really bad. Way baad. I think I'll see if other ppl have this too. *off to search the forum*)

Last edited by Pez; 05-21-03 at 10:15 PM.
Pez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-03, 05:50 PM   #47
bwkaz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,262
Default

For the IDE, there's a driver for the nForce chipset in recent 2.4.21-rcX (and some of the later 2.4.21-preX) kernels. It's a sub-driver of the AMD IDE driver, IIRC.

For the other issue, do other programs (other than glxgears) work well? Like the UT2k3 demo, or tuxracer, or something?
__________________
Registered Linux User #219692

Last edited by bwkaz; 05-22-03 at 05:59 PM.
bwkaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-03, 02:56 AM   #48
feeyo
Registered User
 
feeyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 140
Arrow

The drivers aint the problem boys.

I have a 900mhz amd athlon with Leadtek geforce 2 MX 400 64MB

and frames are:
5856 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1171.200 FPS
5760 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1152.000 FPS
5924 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1184.800 FPS
6426 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1285.200 FPS

i think you guys didnt install the drivers the goodway. Anyhow your colors have to be on 16bit cause using 24bit or more disables your 3D on the system. is this the problem??

Did you guys uninstalled the old or dummy nvidia drivers before installing the new official ones??
have you entered the "switch2nvidia" with root on your console??

Try a 3Ddiag and c what i tells you.
__________________
http://www.agilityos.com
feeyo 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
My UT2003 Tweak Guide DXnfiniteFX Gaming Central 48 10-30-02 11:59 PM
so let's try this again in the new forum - bad performance with correctly inst.driver neutrino NVIDIA Linux 11 08-01-02 04:19 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:46 AM.


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