GMA500 vs. G3 software render

[Adam Pribyl]

On Thu, 3 May 2012, Bodhi Zazen wrote:

> Just thought I would weigh in on this issue ...
>
> I use the gma500 and, yes g3 is a bit slow, but performance has been improving.

I follow your blog closely, I have 1.33GHz Atom and compared to fallback 
it is a big difference. With fallback it flies.

>
> It is on my to do list to take one of the F17 daily spins for a test drive.

I am testing F17 TC2.

> If you find g3 slow, use another window manager, but I sort of like G3 on my netbook ;)

Of cousrse I can, but booting F17 Live on any netbook with poulsbo atom 
1.3GHz, makes clear decision - no way.

> In discussing the issue I think you need to be more specific , are you talking kernel ? The 3.4 kernel should be even better. Or are you talking llvmpipe ?

OK.. This was just a simple question, I do not want to complicate things. 
Just wanted to point out, that software render is a double edge sword.
Personally I can live with small gsettings set.

Of course the best would be to have gma500 speed up - thats 
upstream work, but as gma500 is aging I doubt. But I may be wrong.

Adam Pribyl

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Adam Pribyl" <pribyl at lowlevel.cz>
> To: test at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 5:21:06 AM
> Subject: GMA500 vs. G3 software render
>
> While I consider the latest development on gma500, present in many Atom 
> base netbooks, a great success and would like to say thank you to 
> developer(s), G3 software render negates all this for gnome shell as this 
> is extremely slow on Atom. With the fallback mode the G3 is working very 
> well on gma500. But the obvious question is, beside the questionable 
> future of acceleration on gma500 - what is the future of the fallback? Is 
> there still a list of devices that should use fallback "by default"? If 
> yes, then I would nominate the gma500 for it, as this is really horrible 
> experience, making many users scared, just after live CD/USB boot.
>
> Adam Pribyl