hi all
i am trying to use gem, since i changed to ubuntu. i used gem before successfully on windows on the same computer. but since i started compiling gem myself on ubuntu dapper, i am not convinced by its performance and i strongly believe that i am doing something wrong, or anything on my computer is not optimized etc.
specs: Pentium M 1.7GHz Ati Radeon Mobility 9600 Ubuntu Dapper Xorg 7.0.0 xorg-driver-fglrx gem from cvs (checked out today) the output of './configure': http://romanhaefeli.net/gem_configure.txt
why am i thinking that gem is not working well on my computer?
the screensaver also does opengl stuff, that seems to be quite complicated in my eyes and it does eat only a little of the cpu-power, when running. also running the same gem-patches on windows seems to be not only 2x-3x faster, but maybe 30-50 times. running fgl_glxgears gives me values between 440 and 450 frames per second, which makes me assume, that hardware accelerated opengl works on my computer. so i suspect gem no to use any hardware acceleration at all and i wonder why. is there a way to check, if gem uses hardware acceleration? if yes and if my gem is _not_ using hardware acceleration, what do i need to do in order to make gem use of it?
many thanks in advance
roman
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
hello,
in order to know if your driver suport hardware acceleration, you can try :
glxinfo | grep direct
if it says yes : then you have hardware acceleration, so gem should use it.
anyway, ubuntu do not distribute by default binary driver, so the opengl stuff is not very efficient. i think you should install the binary driver (if compatible with your vision of open source)
once this is made, you should have "good" acceleration, and gem should use it.
well, i hope it help, cyrille
Roman Haefeli a écrit :
hi all
i am trying to use gem, since i changed to ubuntu. i used gem before successfully on windows on the same computer. but since i started compiling gem myself on ubuntu dapper, i am not convinced by its performance and i strongly believe that i am doing something wrong, or anything on my computer is not optimized etc.
specs: Pentium M 1.7GHz Ati Radeon Mobility 9600 Ubuntu Dapper
Xorg 7.0.0 xorg-driver-fglrx gem from cvs (checked out today) the output of './configure': http://romanhaefeli.net/gem_configure.txt
why am i thinking that gem is not working well on my computer?
the screensaver also does opengl stuff, that seems to be quite complicated in my eyes and it does eat only a little of the cpu-power, when running. also running the same gem-patches on windows seems to be not only 2x-3x faster, but maybe 30-50 times. running fgl_glxgears gives me values between 440 and 450 frames per second, which makes me assume, that hardware accelerated opengl works on my computer.
you should have 10 time more with this card.
so i suspect gem no to use any hardware acceleration at all and i wonder why. is there a way to check, if gem uses hardware acceleration? if yes and if my gem is _not_ using hardware acceleration, what do i need to do in order to make gem use of it?
many thanks in advance
roman
___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
hi cyrill
thanks for replying
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 20:10 +0100, cyrille henry wrote:
hello,
in order to know if your driver suport hardware acceleration, you can try :
glxinfo | grep direct
it says:
'direct rendering: Yes'
if it says yes : then you have hardware acceleration, so gem should use it.
anyway, ubuntu do not distribute by default binary driver, so the opengl stuff is not very efficient. i think you should install the binary driver (if compatible with your vision of open source)
i know, that is why i installed the proprietary/binary fglrx-driver.
once this is made, you should have "good" acceleration, and gem should use it.
it still think, that i have 'good' acceleration. for example i can run opengl based games like armagetron in fullscreen mode without any performance problems. also does xscreensaver run without using much cpu in fullscreen mode. i tried once to build something with a similar number of polygons like one of the screensaver animations in gem, but at least when i switch to fullscreen mode, my cpu goes to 100% and the framerate dramatically drops down to 5 frames per second or slower. because of this behaviour, i believe that gem is the only opengl based software on my computer, that does *not* use hardware acceleration, whereas it seems that other programs do. unfortunately i still don't know a reliable way to make sure, whether gem uses hardware acceleration or not, besides comparing its performance with other software.
my problem in other words: how can i make sure at compile time, that gem is compiled so, that it uses hardware acceleration afterwards?
and i am still hoping to hear some succes stories....
roman
well, i hope it help, cyrille
Roman Haefeli a écrit :
hi all
i am trying to use gem, since i changed to ubuntu. i used gem before successfully on windows on the same computer. but since i started compiling gem myself on ubuntu dapper, i am not convinced by its performance and i strongly believe that i am doing something wrong, or anything on my computer is not optimized etc.
specs: Pentium M 1.7GHz Ati Radeon Mobility 9600 Ubuntu Dapper
Xorg 7.0.0 xorg-driver-fglrx gem from cvs (checked out today) the output of './configure': http://romanhaefeli.net/gem_configure.txt
why am i thinking that gem is not working well on my computer?
the screensaver also does opengl stuff, that seems to be quite complicated in my eyes and it does eat only a little of the cpu-power, when running. also running the same gem-patches on windows seems to be not only 2x-3x faster, but maybe 30-50 times. running fgl_glxgears gives me values between 440 and 450 frames per second, which makes me assume, that hardware accelerated opengl works on my computer.
you should have 10 time more with this card.
so i suspect gem no to use any hardware acceleration at all and i wonder why. is there a way to check, if gem uses hardware acceleration? if yes and if my gem is _not_ using hardware acceleration, what do i need to do in order to make gem use of it?
many thanks in advance
roman
___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
Roman Haefeli a écrit : ...
it still think, that i have 'good' acceleration. for example i can run opengl based games like armagetron in fullscreen mode without any performance problems. also does xscreensaver run without using much cpu in fullscreen mode. i tried once to build something with a similar number of polygons like one of the screensaver animations in gem, but at least when i switch to fullscreen mode, my cpu goes to 100% and the framerate dramatically drops down to 5 frames per second or slower. because of this behaviour, i believe that gem is the only opengl based software on my computer, that does *not* use hardware acceleration, whereas it seems that other programs do. unfortunately i still don't know a reliable way to make sure, whether gem uses hardware acceleration or not, besides comparing its performance with other software.
ok.
anyway, on my computer, when i create a gem window, i'v got this on the pd log :
Direct Rendering enabled! GEM: Start rendering
so, this tell you that you do (or do not) have direct rendering with Gem.
my problem in other words: how can i make sure at compile time, that gem is compiled so, that it uses hardware acceleration afterwards?
and i am still hoping to hear some succes stories....
well, there is no reason that gem did not work. i used fglrx with warty and hoary (it was a ati radeon mobility 9000 i think). now, i use nvidia card...
your ./configure output look ok for me. can you double check that you have all fglrx-dev package etc...
sorry, can't help more
cyrille
roman
well, i hope it help, cyrille
Roman Haefeli a écrit :
hi all
i am trying to use gem, since i changed to ubuntu. i used gem before successfully on windows on the same computer. but since i started compiling gem myself on ubuntu dapper, i am not convinced by its performance and i strongly believe that i am doing something wrong, or anything on my computer is not optimized etc.
specs: Pentium M 1.7GHz Ati Radeon Mobility 9600 Ubuntu Dapper Xorg 7.0.0 xorg-driver-fglrx gem from cvs (checked out today) the output of './configure': http://romanhaefeli.net/gem_configure.txt
why am i thinking that gem is not working well on my computer?
the screensaver also does opengl stuff, that seems to be quite complicated in my eyes and it does eat only a little of the cpu-power, when running. also running the same gem-patches on windows seems to be not only 2x-3x faster, but maybe 30-50 times. running fgl_glxgears gives me values between 440 and 450 frames per second, which makes me assume, that hardware accelerated opengl works on my computer.
you should have 10 time more with this card.
so i suspect gem no to use any hardware acceleration at all and i wonder why. is there a way to check, if gem uses hardware acceleration? if yes and if my gem is _not_ using hardware acceleration, what do i need to do in order to make gem use of it?
many thanks in advance
roman
___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
___________________________________________________________ Der fr�he Vogel f�ngt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
hi cyrille
thank you very much for your fast reply
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 13:04 +0100, cyrille henry wrote:
anyway, on my computer, when i create a gem window, i'v got this on the pd log :
Direct Rendering enabled! GEM: Start rendering
now, we are getting closer to the problem. when i send a message [create( to [gemwin], i only get:
GEM: Start rendering
there is no 'Direct Rendering enabled!' message in my pd window. thank you a lot for that hint. now i can be sure, that my gem does *not* use hardware acceleration.
<to the devs> i think it would be helpful, if gem would also print a message, when direct rendering is not used, according to the unix manner, that something is printed, when it doesn't behave as expected, since - i assume - most people use gem *with* hardware acceleration. </to the devs>
your ./configure output look ok for me.
thank you for checking this.
can you double check that you have all fglrx-dev package etc..
i only find 'xorg-driver-fglrx-dev' and 'fglrx-kernel-source', which both are installed.
i once installed 3dp, which also uses dri, if dri is enabled. and with 3dp it seems to work fine. i once posted a patch, that does the same thing twice: three white cubes that can be rotated with the mouse, once built in gem, once in 3dp. the 3dp version doesn't cause any cpu peaks, whereas the gem version does.
(there is a thread on this: http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2006-10/043168.html . when you want to download the patch, use the one from: http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2006-10/043177.html )
the fact, that the selfcompiled 3dp seems to use dri, makes me think, that i have all necessary packages installed, but i might be wrong. i stil wonder, why gem does not use it.
sorry, can't help more
you helped me already a lot :-) . thank you.
roman
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
Roman Haefeli a écrit :
it still think, that i have 'good' acceleration. for example i can run opengl based games like armagetron in fullscreen mode without any
it says:
'direct rendering: Yes'
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 01:04:40PM +0100, cyrille henry wrote:
anyway, on my computer, when i create a gem window, i'v got this on the pd log :
Direct Rendering enabled! GEM: Start rendering
Roman,
It might be that GEM is using different versions of the GL libraries. Try this I guess:
ldd /usr/lib/pd/extra/Gem.pd_linux
and do the same for glxgears, and see if they're using the same libs.
Chris.
chris@mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx
hi chris
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 22:29 +0800, Chris McCormick wrote:
Roman Haefeli a écrit :
it still think, that i have 'good' acceleration. for example i can run opengl based games like armagetron in fullscreen mode without any
it says:
'direct rendering: Yes'
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 01:04:40PM +0100, cyrille henry wrote:
anyway, on my computer, when i create a gem window, i'v got this on the pd log :
Direct Rendering enabled! GEM: Start rendering
Roman,
It might be that GEM is using different versions of the GL libraries. Try this I guess:
ldd /usr/lib/pd/extra/Gem.pd_linux
and do the same for glxgears, and see if they're using the same libs.
thank you much for that tip.
i think i need help on interprating those outputs. i have posted them here:
http://www.romanhaefeli.net/ldd_gem.txt http://www.romanhaefeli.net/ldd_glxgears.txt http://www.romanhaefeli.net/ldd_3dp.txt
i found, that libglut is not linked in gem, but it is in glxgears and in 3dp. is that a sign, that gem is not using dri?
roman
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
On 11/28/06, Roman Haefeli reduzierer@yahoo.de wrote:
i found, that libglut is not linked in gem, but it is in glxgears and in 3dp. is that a sign, that gem is not using dri?
No. GLUT is a toolkit for making simple OpenGL applications. GEM uses glx directly. Perhaps your X11 is not set to a compatible pixel format? I think that is what causes glXIsDirect to return false (and triggers that message in GEM). 24 bit and 8 bit are supported in the glx code in CVS.
hi chris
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 10:02 -0600, chris clepper wrote:
On 11/28/06, Roman Haefeli reduzierer@yahoo.de wrote:
i found, that libglut is not linked in gem, but it is in glxgears and in 3dp. is that a sign, that gem is not using dri?No. GLUT is a toolkit for making simple OpenGL applications. GEM uses glx directly. Perhaps your X11 is not set to a compatible pixel format?
how can i change to a compatible pixel format? by editng xorg.conf?
I think that is what causes glXIsDirect to return false (and triggers that message in GEM).
what is 'glXIsDirect' ? where did you see that? which message in GEM ?
forgive me my slow understanding and thanks a lot for your help.
roman
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
On 11/28/06, Roman Haefeli reduzierer@yahoo.de wrote:
how can i change to a compatible pixel format? by editng xorg.conf?
I haven't used xorg but probably that conf file has the info on pixel depth.
I think that is what causes glXIsDirect to return false (and triggers
that message in GEM).
what is 'glXIsDirect' ? where did you see that? which message in GEM ?
forgive me my slow understanding and thanks a lot for your help.
glXIsDirect checks that the GL can be drawn directly to the screen and not be touched by the x11 server.
http://www.csee.umbc.edu/help/C++/opengl/man_pages/html/glx/xisdirect.html
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 10:39 -0600, chris clepper wrote:
On 11/28/06, Roman Haefeli reduzierer@yahoo.de wrote: how can i change to a compatible pixel format? by editng xorg.conf?
I haven't used xorg but probably that conf file has the info on pixel depth.
the pixel default depth on my computer is 24 , at least that is what my xorg.conf tells me.
> I think that is what causes glXIsDirect to return false (and triggers > that message in GEM).
i am confused. i didn't mention 'glxIsDirect', also i don't have it installed. where did you read, that it is returning 'false' on my computer?
glXIsDirect checks that the GL can be drawn directly to the screen and not be touched by the x11 server.
http://www.csee.umbc.edu/help/C ++/opengl/man_pages/html/glx/xisdirect.html
thank you for the link
roman
___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
chris clepper a écrit :
On 11/28/06, *Roman Haefeli* <reduzierer@yahoo.de mailto:reduzierer@yahoo.de> wrote:
how can i change to a compatible pixel format? by editng xorg.conf?I haven't used xorg but probably that conf file has the info on pixel depth.
yes, the default ubuntu xorg.conf is set to 16bit depth buffer. i usually change it to 24 for better gem performances, but it usually work with the default config.
you can try changing the DefaultDepth from 16 to 24 in your xorg.
cyrille
> I think that is what causes glXIsDirect to return false (and triggers > that message in GEM). what is 'glXIsDirect' ? where did you see that? which message in GEM ? forgive me my slow understanding and thanks a lot for your help.glXIsDirect checks that the GL can be drawn directly to the screen and not be touched by the x11 server.
http://www.csee.umbc.edu/help/C++/opengl/man_pages/html/glx/xisdirect.html
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Roman Haefeli a écrit :
hi chris
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 22:29 +0800, Chris McCormick wrote:
Roman Haefeli a écrit :
it still think, that i have 'good' acceleration. for example i can run opengl based games like armagetron in fullscreen mode without any it says:
'direct rendering: Yes'
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 01:04:40PM +0100, cyrille henry wrote:
anyway, on my computer, when i create a gem window, i'v got this on the pd log :
Direct Rendering enabled! GEM: Start rendering
Roman,
It might be that GEM is using different versions of the GL libraries. Try this I guess:
ldd /usr/lib/pd/extra/Gem.pd_linux
and do the same for glxgears, and see if they're using the same libs.
thank you much for that tip.
i think i need help on interprating those outputs. i have posted them here:
here is mine : linux-gate.so.1 => (0xffffe000) libGLU.so.1 => /usr/lib/libGLU.so.1 (0xb7c0b000) libGL.so.1 => /usr/lib/libGL.so.1 (0xb7b85000) libfreetype.so.6 => /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6 (0xb7b1c000) libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0xb7b08000) libdv.so.4 => /usr/lib/libdv.so.4 (0xb7ae0000) libmpeg3.so.1 => /usr/lib/libmpeg3.so.1 (0xb7aa5000) libjpeg.so.62 => /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.62 (0xb7a86000) libtiff.so.4 => /usr/lib/libtiff.so.4 (0xb7a35000) libXext.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXext.so.6 (0xb7a28000) libXxf86vm.so.1 => /usr/lib/libXxf86vm.so.1 (0xb7a23000) libX11.so.6 => /usr/lib/libX11.so.6 (0xb793d000) libdl.so.2 => /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libdl.so.2 (0xb793a000) libpthread.so.0 => /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libpthread.so.0 (0xb7928000) libaviplay-0.7.so.0 => /usr/lib/libaviplay-0.7.so.0 (0xb788e000) libquicktime.so.0 => /usr/lib/libquicktime.so.0 (0xb77ec000) libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libm.so.6 (0xb77ca000) libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 (0xb76f5000) libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0xb76eb000) libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 (0xb75bc000) libGLcore.so.1 => /usr/lib/libGLcore.so.1 (0xb6df8000) libnvidia-tls.so.1 => /usr/lib/tls/libnvidia-tls.so.1 (0xb6df6000) liba52-0.7.4.so => /usr/lib/liba52-0.7.4.so (0xb6dec000) libXau.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXau.so.6 (0xb6de9000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x80000000) libaviplayavformat-0.7.so.0 => /usr/lib/libaviplayavformat-0.7.so.0 (0xb6d8a000) libaviplayavcodec-0.7.so.0 => /usr/lib/libaviplayavcodec-0.7.so.0 (0xb6ab6000) libaviplayavutil-0.7.so.0 => /usr/lib/libaviplayavutil-0.7.so.0 (0xb6ab1000) libSDL-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libSDL-1.2.so.0 (0xb6a29000) libasound.so.2 => /usr/lib/libasound.so.2 (0xb6974000) libartsc.so.0 => /usr/lib/libartsc.so.0 (0xb696e000) libgmodule-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgmodule-2.0.so.0 (0xb696b000) libgthread-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgthread-2.0.so.0 (0xb6966000) libglib-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 (0xb68e2000) libesd.so.0 => /usr/lib/libesd.so.0 (0xb68d8000) libaudiofile.so.0 => /usr/lib/libaudiofile.so.0 (0xb68b8000) libaudio.so.2 => /usr/lib/libaudio.so.2 (0xb68a4000) libXt.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXt.so.6 (0xb6856000) libaa.so.1 => /usr/lib/libaa.so.1 (0xb683b000) libncurses.so.5 => /lib/libncurses.so.5 (0xb67fa000) libslang.so.2 => /lib/libslang.so.2 (0xb673f000) libSM.so.6 => /usr/lib/libSM.so.6 (0xb6737000) libICE.so.6 => /usr/lib/libICE.so.6 (0xb671f000) libXinerama.so.1 => /usr/lib/libXinerama.so.1 (0xb671c000) libXi.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXi.so.6 (0xb6713000) libXft.so.2 => /usr/lib/libXft.so.2 (0xb6701000) libfontconfig.so.1 => /usr/lib/libfontconfig.so.1 (0xb66d3000) libXrender.so.1 => /usr/lib/libXrender.so.1 (0xb66cb000) libaviplayvidix-0.7.so.0 => /usr/lib/libaviplayvidix-0.7.so.0 (0xb66c7000) libaviplaydha-0.7.so.0 => /usr/lib/libaviplaydha-0.7.so.0 (0xb6692000) libnsl.so.1 => /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libnsl.so.1 (0xb667c000) libgpm.so.1 => /usr/lib/libgpm.so.1 (0xb6676000) libexpat.so.1 => /usr/lib/libexpat.so.1 (0xb6657000)
the main diference i see with yours is that mine got : libGLcore.so.1 => /usr/lib/libGLcore.so.1 (0xb6df8000) libnvidia-tls.so.1 => /usr/lib/tls/libnvidia-tls.so.1 (0xb6df6000)
http://www.romanhaefeli.net/ldd_gem.txt http://www.romanhaefeli.net/ldd_glxgears.txt http://www.romanhaefeli.net/ldd_3dp.txt
i found, that libglut is not linked in gem, but it is in glxgears and in 3dp. is that a sign, that gem is not using dri?
no, i don't think so : gem does not use it here.
cyrille
roman
___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 17:21 +0100, cyrille henry wrote:
the main diference i see with yours is that mine got : libGLcore.so.1 => /usr/lib/libGLcore.so.1 (0xb6df8000) libnvidia-tls.so.1 => /usr/lib/tls/libnvidia-tls.so.1 (0xb6df6000)
i don't know what libGLcore.so.1 is for, but this seems to be interesting. i think i don't have the other one, because i have an ati card (with fglrx driver) and not a one from nvidia.
http://www.romanhaefeli.net/ldd_gem.txt http://www.romanhaefeli.net/ldd_glxgears.txt http://www.romanhaefeli.net/ldd_3dp.txt
i found, that libglut is not linked in gem, but it is in glxgears and in 3dp. is that a sign, that gem is not using dri?
no, i don't think so : gem does not use it here.
i see
thank you
roman
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 17:21 +0100, cyrille henry wrote:
the main diference i see with yours is that mine got : libGLcore.so.1 => /usr/lib/libGLcore.so.1 (0xb6df8000)
is it necessary, that Gem.pd_linux is linked against libGLcore.so ? is that the reason, why i don't have dri enabled in gem? i've been desperately trying to find some info about libGLcore.so, but couldn't find anything usefull.
i am still tapping in the dark.. :-(
roman
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
hi all
finally i solved the problem. gem couldn't access the direct rendering infrastructure, because in my .pdrc pdp_opengl was loaded _before_ Gem. that means, it was not a problem during compile time, but it occured when loading the externals.
___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 20:10 +0100, cyrille henry wrote:
Roman Haefeli a écrit :
running fgl_glxgears gives me values between 440 and 450 frames per second, which makes me assume, that hardware accelerated opengl works on my computer.
you should have 10 time more with this card.
no, i don't think so. it makes a difference between running fgl_glxgears and the 'normal' glxgears, since the former is much more complex than the latter. also it depends on the window size you are rendering at (and if the window is (partially) hidden by another window etc.).
values on my computer (with original window size):
glxgears -printfps: ~2200 fgl_glxgears: ~450
i know, that this is not a serious way of benchmarking, but at least these values make me believe, that hardware acceleration works. or am i wrong?
roman
___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
Roman Haefeli a écrit :
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 20:10 +0100, cyrille henry wrote:
Roman Haefeli a écrit :
running fgl_glxgears gives me values between 440 and 450 frames per second, which makes me assume, that hardware accelerated opengl works on my computer.
you should have 10 time more with this card.
no, i don't think so. it makes a difference between running fgl_glxgears and the 'normal' glxgears, since the former is much more complex than the latter. also it depends on the window size you are rendering at (and if the window is (partially) hidden by another window etc.).
values on my computer (with original window size):
glxgears -printfps: ~2200 fgl_glxgears: ~450
ok, i did not know that fgl_glxgears was more complex than glxgears. this looks ok.
i know, that this is not a serious way of benchmarking, but at least these values make me believe, that hardware acceleration works. or am i wrong?
my glxgears -printfps gives me 60, but i have direct rendering! (rendering is sync to the screen flip)
your acceleration work because glxinfo | grep direct says: 'direct rendering: Yes'
cyrille
roman
___________________________________________________________ Der fr�he Vogel f�ngt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
Hi Roman,
Getting accelerated graphics from ATI cards on Linux has always been problematic with or without GEM.
What does "glxinfo" (or "fgl_glxinfo"???) tell you? Look for the line which says:
direct rendering:
which should tell you "Yes" or "No".
best, d.
hi derek
as i mentioned in the original post, i *have* accelerated graphics on my computer, so glxinfo tells me:
'direct rendering: Yes'
the problem i have in this specific case, that i suspect gem not to make use of the hardware acceleration, for whatever reason. i don't know of reliable way to check that yet, though (besides noticing that it is much slower than i would expect).
roman
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 23:03 +0100, derek holzer wrote:
Hi Roman,
Getting accelerated graphics from ATI cards on Linux has always been problematic with or without GEM.
What does "glxinfo" (or "fgl_glxinfo"???) tell you? Look for the line which says:
direct rendering:
which should tell you "Yes" or "No".
best, d.
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
Hi Roman,
I just wanted to get that out of the way. Just because glxgears runs doesn't mean that OpenGL is working and you actually have direct rendering. Sorry I can't help more, since I've never gotten ATI cards to work properly with Linux. Glad at least those work for you! ;-)
best, d.
Roman Haefeli wrote:
hi derek
as i mentioned in the original post, i *have* accelerated graphics on my computer, so glxinfo tells me:
'direct rendering: Yes'
the problem i have in this specific case, that i suspect gem not to make use of the hardware acceleration, for whatever reason. i don't know of reliable way to check that yet, though (besides noticing that it is much slower than i would expect).
roman
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 23:03 +0100, derek holzer wrote:
Hi Roman,
Getting accelerated graphics from ATI cards on Linux has always been problematic with or without GEM.
What does "glxinfo" (or "fgl_glxinfo"???) tell you? Look for the line which says:
direct rendering:
which should tell you "Yes" or "No".
best, d.
___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
hi derek
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 00:01 +0100, derek holzer wrote:
Hi Roman,
I just wanted to get that out of the way. Just because glxgears runs doesn't mean that OpenGL is working and you actually have direct rendering.
i see...
Sorry I can't help more, since I've never gotten ATI cards to work properly with Linux. Glad at least those work for you! ;-)
this doesn't sound very promising.... :-/ for my part, i only figured it out how to setup with the help of detailed descriptions from the ubuntu-wikis and -forums.
since this topic seems not to be the easiest one, i would even be glad to hear some succes stories:
is anyone from that list using gem successfully on a system with installed fglrx-driver? i really hope, there are many gem-on-linux users around, so there is still hope :-)
roman
best, d.
Roman Haefeli wrote:
hi derek
as i mentioned in the original post, i *have* accelerated graphics on my computer, so glxinfo tells me:
'direct rendering: Yes'
the problem i have in this specific case, that i suspect gem not to make use of the hardware acceleration, for whatever reason. i don't know of reliable way to check that yet, though (besides noticing that it is much slower than i would expect).
roman
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 23:03 +0100, derek holzer wrote:
Hi Roman,
Getting accelerated graphics from ATI cards on Linux has always been problematic with or without GEM.
What does "glxinfo" (or "fgl_glxinfo"???) tell you? Look for the line which says:
direct rendering:
which should tell you "Yes" or "No".
best, d.
___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
type: glxinfo | grep "direct rendering" on the console. it'll tell you Yes or No on DRI.
glxinfo | grep -i dri will tell you the driver
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 00:32 +0100, Roman Haefeli wrote:
hi derek
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 00:01 +0100, derek holzer wrote:
Hi Roman,
I just wanted to get that out of the way. Just because glxgears runs doesn't mean that OpenGL is working and you actually have direct rendering.
i see...
Sorry I can't help more, since I've never gotten ATI cards to work properly with Linux. Glad at least those work for you! ;-)
this doesn't sound very promising.... :-/ for my part, i only figured it out how to setup with the help of detailed descriptions from the ubuntu-wikis and -forums.
since this topic seems not to be the easiest one, i would even be glad to hear some succes stories:
is anyone from that list using gem successfully on a system with installed fglrx-driver? i really hope, there are many gem-on-linux users around, so there is still hope :-)
roman
best, d.
Roman Haefeli wrote:
hi derek
as i mentioned in the original post, i *have* accelerated graphics on my computer, so glxinfo tells me:
'direct rendering: Yes'
the problem i have in this specific case, that i suspect gem not to make use of the hardware acceleration, for whatever reason. i don't know of reliable way to check that yet, though (besides noticing that it is much slower than i would expect).
roman
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 23:03 +0100, derek holzer wrote:
Hi Roman,
Getting accelerated graphics from ATI cards on Linux has always been problematic with or without GEM.
What does "glxinfo" (or "fgl_glxinfo"???) tell you? Look for the line which says:
direct rendering:
which should tell you "Yes" or "No".
best, d.
___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-
chris clepper -
Chris McCormick -
cyrille henry -
derek holzer -
Roman Haefeli -
shift8