FC5, progression or regression?

[David Timms]

Dave Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 10:59:54PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>  > Mike A. Harris (mharris at mharris.ca) said: 
>  > > >a 3 GHz P4 processor for heaven's sake. It should run FC5 like the wind.
>  > > 
>  > > That's why it is a test release, to find bugs.  Don't use test releases
>  > > if you expect flawless OS operation and perfect performance.
>  > 
>  > However, if it's *significantly* less performance, it could certainly
>  > signify something that's wrong.
> 
> Current kernels still have slab debugging on (Because we still have
> bugs that this is tripping up that need whacking).  The increased
> overhead of this sucks up memory bandwidth, and I wouldn't be
> surprised if shared-memory video chipsets feel some pain.
With glxgears, I see the gears update about 15 times in 10 seconds, and 
the results are (AMD athlon 2600+, 512ram, nvidia fx5600)# glxgears
888 frames in 5.4 seconds = 165.811 FPS
798 frames in 5.0 seconds = 158.416 FPS
912 frames in 5.7 seconds = 161.284 FPS
798 frames in 5.0 seconds = 158.274 FPS
798 frames in 5.1 seconds = 155.004 FPS
It's hard to tell if this is just a stobing effect ;-)

I think it was at least an order of magnitude higher in FC4 - from 
memory approximately 5000 f/s (but perhaps only with the nvidia 
(non-open) driver).

Bill: this would seem to fit the *significantly* term: is this what 
others see ?
Dave: card is a separate memory (128MB) card: it seems that this may be 
expected until the debugging is disable ?

DaveT.