glxgear and glxinfo confusion

[Mark LaPierre]

On 01/21/2012 02:18 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 21.01.2012 20:08, schrieb Mark LaPierre:
>> On 01/21/2012 04:30 AM, Markku Kolkka wrote:
>>> 21.1.2012 10:08, Jatin K kirjoitti:
>>>> I've Dell Latitiude E5620 Laptop with intel HD 3000 graphics card [1],
>>>> According glxinfo [2] that direct rendering is enabled but glxgear[3]
>>>> output shows very low FPS
>>> The answer is included in the glxinfo output:
>>>
>>>> [3]------ glxgears
>>>>
>>>> Running synchronized to the vertical refresh.  The framerate should be
>>>> approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate.
>> Right.  You want it to look more like this:
>> [mlapier at mushroom ~]$ glxgears
>> 20670 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4133.959 FPS
>> 20746 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4149.087 FPS
>> 20731 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4146.106 FPS
>> 20744 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4148.615 FPS
>> 20741 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4148.097 FPS
>> 20570 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4113.860 FPS
>> 20724 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4144.629 FPS
> glxgears IS NOT a becnhmark and was never one!
>
I never said it is a bench mark, or that it ever was one.  What I said 
was that his display is locked to the refresh rate of his video screen 
and that he should look there for the solution.

He didn't state what glxgears was reading before as compared to what it 
is reading now.  I would only use glxgears to indicate a *relative* 
change in performance from one configuration to another.  The actual 
result is essentially meaningless except for a comparison between two 
configurations on the same hardware.  Without the result from a previous 
run, under similar conditions, there is nothing to relate to.

Example:
I went from using the Open Source nouveau driver at about 200 FPS to the 
proprietary Nvidea driver at 4100 FPS.  A *relative* improvement.  The 
proprietary driver also gave me 3D acceleration that was not working at 
all under the OS driver.

-- 
     _
    °v°
   /(_)\
    ^ ^  Mark LaPierre
Registerd Linux user No #267004