Low OpenGL performance

[Joachim Frieben]

After installing FC5T3 including updates on 2 different machines, I am
puzzled by the surprisingly poor OpenGL performance when running the
"glxgears" command:

   IBM ThinkPad T23 [SuperSavage IX/C SDR]:   115 FPS

when other users report values of at least 240 FPS. Similarly for a

   PR440FX based SPM system [Radon 7200 PCI]: 160 FPS

when I used to achieve 360 FPS for earlier releases. In both cases, "DRI" is
enabled. "LIBGL_DEBUG" is set to "verbose", and "glxinfo"
output looks ok.
Moreover, I booted with "enforcing=0" to avoid any "SELinux" trouble
... .

Any ideas? Similar observations?

[Naoki]

I get 160/170 on nvidia [Quadro4 NVS AGP 8x].  Standard "nv" driver, no
nvidia driver.

On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 13:28 +0100, Joachim Frieben wrote:
>  After installing FC5T3 including updates on 2 different machines, I
> am
>  puzzled by the surprisingly poor OpenGL performance when running the
>  "glxgears" command:
>  
>     IBM ThinkPad T23 [SuperSavage IX/C SDR]:   115 FPS
>  
>  when other users report values of at least 240 FPS. Similarly for a
>  
>     PR440FX based SPM system [Radon 7200 PCI]: 160 FPS
>  
>  when I used to achieve 360 FPS for earlier releases. In both cases, "DRI" is
>  enabled. "LIBGL_DEBUG" is set to "verbose", and "glxinfo"
> output looks ok.
>  Moreover, I booted with "enforcing=0" to avoid any "SELinux" trouble
> ... .

[Joachim Frieben]

Yes, for the "nv" driver, you do not obtain any hardware acceleration at
all. So, the values are still reasonable for pure soft rendering and
equivalent for my own older hardware with "DRI" enabled!

>  I get 160/170 on nvidia [Quadro4 NVS AGP 8x].  Standard
> "nv" driver, no
>  nvidia driver.

[Tom]

On Wednesday 22 February 2006 08:57, Joachim Frieben wrote:
>  Yes, for the "nv" driver, you do not obtain any hardware
>  acceleration at all. 
   Not quite true, an hasn't been for several years. What you don't 
have with 'nv' is direct rendering (DRI). Needed for 3d/accel games. 
Prior to SGI's contributions a few years ago, 'glxgears' wouldn't 
even run at all.
  (from glxinfo)
display: :0  screen: 0
direct rendering: No
server glx vendor string: SGI
server glx version string: 1.2

>  So, the values are still reasonable for pure 
>  soft rendering and equivalent for my own older hardware with "DRI"
>  enabled!
>
>  > I get 160/170 on nvidia [Quadro4 NVS AGP 8x].  Standard "nv"
>  > driver, no nvidia driver. 
   GeF4, nv driver, Athlon XP 3200+/400.. 380 / 390fps on the small 
default window, but when run full screen, 1280x1024-24 it drops to 
27 / 30fps. 

-- 
	Tom Brinkman		      Corpus Christi, Texas

[Joachim Frieben]

Given that the subject of my post was "Low OpenGL performance", I was
obviously only talking about (3D) direct rendering. Typing "man nv" allows
you to learn immediately that 2D acceleration is of course available. We are
not in the 80ies anymore. Anyway, thanks for posting your FPS.

I am very interested in results by other "T23" users. My current results
("DRI" *is* enabled as "env LIBGL_DEBUG=verbose glxinfo" says ..
"direct
rendering: Yes" .. and no complaints that it cannot load "savage_dri.so"
and
the like). I checked with a current "Ubuntu" live CD. Not terrific either,
but about 200 FPS is still better than 115 FPS which I achieve with FC5T3.

>  On Wednesday 22 February 2006 08:57, Joachim Frieben wrote:
> > Yes, for the "nv" driver, you do not obtain any hardware
> > acceleration at all.
>
>    Not quite true, an hasn't been for several years. What you don't
>  have with 'nv' is direct rendering (DRI). Needed for 3d/accel games.

[Rudolf Kastl]

2006/2/22, Tom Brinkman <tbrinkman(a)sbcglobal.net&gt;:
>  On Wednesday 22 February 2006 08:57, Joachim Frieben wrote:
>  > Yes, for the "nv" driver, you do not obtain any hardware
>  > acceleration at all.
>
>     Not quite true, an hasn't been for several years. What you don't
>  have with 'nv' is direct rendering (DRI). Needed for 3d/accel games.
>  Prior to SGI's contributions a few years ago, 'glxgears' wouldn't
>  even run at all.
>    (from glxinfo)
>  display: :0  screen: 0
>  direct rendering: No
>  server glx vendor string: SGI
>  server glx version string: 1.2
>
>  > So, the values are still reasonable for pure
>  > soft rendering and equivalent for my own older hardware with "DRI"
>  > enabled!
>  >
>  > > I get 160/170 on nvidia [Quadro4 NVS AGP 8x].  Standard "nv"
>  > > driver, no nvidia driver.
>
>     GeF4, nv driver, Athlon XP 3200+/400.. 380 / 390fps on the small
>  default window, but when run full screen, 1280x1024-24 it drops to
>  27 / 30fps.
>
>  --
>          Tom Brinkman                  Corpus Christi, Texas
>
>  -- 
umm care to elaborate what is hardware accelerated by the gpu with
software rendering and the nv driver if the cpu does all the
rendering?

regards,
Rudolf Kastl

>  fedora-devel-list mailing list
>  fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>

[Mike A. Harris]

Joachim Frieben wrote:
>  After installing FC5T3 including updates on 2 different machines, I
> am
>  puzzled by the surprisingly poor OpenGL performance when running the
>  "glxgears" command:
>  
>     IBM ThinkPad T23 [SuperSavage IX/C SDR]:   115 FPS
>  
>  when other users report values of at least 240 FPS. Similarly for a
>  
>     PR440FX based SPM system [Radon 7200 PCI]: 160 FPS
>  
>  when I used to achieve 360 FPS for earlier releases. In both cases, "DRI" is
>  enabled. "LIBGL_DEBUG" is set to "verbose", and "glxinfo"
> output looks ok.
>  Moreover, I booted with "enforcing=0" to avoid any "SELinux" trouble
> ... .
>  
>  Any ideas? Similar observations? 
It's generally a good idea to subscribe to the DRI and Mesa mailing
lists if experiencing GL performance issues or other problems.  The IRC
channel #dri-devel on freenode.net is also quite useful.  That's a
direct pipe to the developers, who are generally quite helpful and
often provide troubleshooting tips, etc.

Hope this helps.


-- 
Mike A. Harris  *  Open Source Advocate  *  http://mharris.ca
                       Proud Canadian.

[Joachim Frieben]

I wouldn't have posted my observation here if I hadn't checked in advance
against other distros using "Xorg" 7.0.0 to exclude upstream issues to a
reasonable extent. For both systems, I obtain 70% higher fps with the live
CD of a different distro which makes it likely that the issue is a "Fedora"
one. This justifies in my opinion the to post to this list and to ask for
confirmation by other "Fedora Core" development testers. I further recall
that e.g. "Red Hat" Bug #180150,

  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180150 ,

is due to a custom "Red Hat" patch. It is thus not at all obvious that bug
reports or requests upstream are always a better idea.

-JF

>  It's generally a good idea to subscribe to the DRI and Mesa mailing
>  lists if experiencing GL performance issues or other problems.  The IRC
>  channel #dri-devel on freenode.net is also quite useful.  That's a
>  direct pipe to the developers, who are generally quite helpful and
>  often provide troubleshooting tips, etc.
>
>  Hope this helps.
>
>
>  --
>  Mike A. Harris  *  Open Source Advocate  *  http://mharris.ca
>                        Proud Canadian.

[Dawid Gajownik]

Dnia 02/22/2006 01:31 PM, Użytkownik Joachim Frieben napisał:
>  After installing FC5T3 including updates on 2 different machines, I
> am
>  puzzled by the surprisingly poor OpenGL performance when running the
>  "glxgears" command 
Mesa does not enable compiler optimisations by default:
http://cvs.freedesktop.org/mesa/Mesa/configs/linux-dri (see the log next 
to the 1.12 revision)
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=5432450&forum_...

I spotted this when I was testing modular X.Org X11 in September 2005. I 
also wrote an email about it to Mike A. Harris , but I did not get an 
answer ;)

Mesa seems to be built with `-Wall -O -g' flags. You may want to 
download srpm and modify configs/default/linux-dri file. Changing 
OPT_FLAGS variable to the output of `rpm --eval %{optflags}' command may 
resolve your problem.

Unfortunately, I cannot test it because I have nVidia crap and nv driver 
does not support 3D acceleration [1]. Hopefully, I'll swith soon to ATI 
RADEON 8500 :)

[1] It would be great if someone could port BeOS driver to X.Org X11
http://haikunews.org/1050
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5190#c5

-- 

   ^_*

[Rudolf Kastl]

2006/2/24, Dawid Gajownik <gajownik(a)fedora.pl&gt;:
>  Dnia 02/22/2006 01:31 PM, Użytkownik Joachim Frieben napisał:
>  > After installing FC5T3 including updates on 2 different machines, I am
>  > puzzled by the surprisingly poor OpenGL performance when running the
>  > "glxgears" command
>
>  Mesa does not enable compiler optimisations by default:
>  http://cvs.freedesktop.org/mesa/Mesa/configs/linux-dri (see the log next
>  to the 1.12 revision)
>  http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=5432450&forum_...
>
>  I spotted this when I was testing modular X.Org X11 in September 2005. I
>  also wrote an email about it to Mike A. Harris , but I did not get an
>  answer ;)
>
>  Mesa seems to be built with `-Wall -O -g' flags. You may want to
>  download srpm and modify configs/default/linux-dri file. Changing
>  OPT_FLAGS variable to the output of `rpm --eval %{optflags}' command may
>  resolve your problem.
>
>  Unfortunately, I cannot test it because I have nVidia crap and nv driver
>  does not support 3D acceleration [1]. Hopefully, I'll swith soon to ATI
>  RADEON 8500 :)
>
>  [1] It would be great if someone could port BeOS driver to X.Org X11
>  http://haikunews.org/1050
>  https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5190#c5
>
>  --
>
>     ^_*
>
>
>  --
>  fedora-devel-list mailing list
>  fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>  
hacking the flags in statically to the file isnt a proper solution.
there must be a way to do that with a variable etc...
i am going to look into the stuff this evening and will report back to
that thread once i have sent a patch to bugzilla.

regards,
rudolf kastl