Thanks, Michael Larabel for continuing to post meaningless benchmarks and drawing wrong conclusions.

Quote Originally Posted by pvtcupcakes View Post
From my experience on Arch with Linux 2.6.30, I get 850fps on glxgears with 2.7 and 550 with 2.8.
There is a technical reason of why 2.7 (I assume EXA/DRI1) performs faster in glxgears than 2.8 (UXA/DR2):

Quote Originally Posted by Keith Packard
The difference between DRI1 and DRI2 is due in part to the context switch necessary to get buffer swap commands from the DRI2 application to the X server which owns the ‘real’ front buffer. For an application like glxgears which draws almost nothing, and spends most of its time clearing and swapping, the impact can be significant (note, glxgears is not a benchmark, this is just one of many reasons). On the other hand, having private back buffers means that partially obscured applications will draw faster, not having to loop over clip rectangles in the main rendering loop.
http://keithp.com/blogs/Sharpening_t..._Driver_Focus/

But as Keith already mentions: glxgears is not a benchmark. But maybe you need one more:

Quote Originally Posted by Carl Worth
Nobody measures the performance of "draw the same triangles over and over". And if someone does, (by seriously quoting glxgear fps numbers, for example), then everybody gets a good laugh. In fact, the phrase "glxgears is not a benchmark" is a catchphrase among 3D developers.
http://www.cworth.org/intel/performance_measurement/

Now that we laughed about you and Michael for drawing conclusions from this same benchmark (just ported to QT4):
http://zrusin.blogspot.com/2008/08/fast-graphics.html

Let's consider some serious aspects. We need real application benchmarks such as game engines, firefox rendering or compiz performance. But even in this case, performance may degrade from one version to another. If that's the reason one should check whether one of these reasons apply:

. I noticed in Urban Terror, when performing Mesa benchmarks, that in certain revisions of the Mesa Stack on x3100 GM965 hardware, some visual effects were not drawn e.g. some lightning or the shot of your weapon. If it's not drawn the entire scene draws faster (though with slight visual corruption or flaws) and you get higher fps reports.

. In some of the recent versions of the intel driver tearing disappeared. I'm not aware of in which version exactly and whether it applies only to indirect or direct rendering, but this might may a dfficerence. I remember Jesse talking about double buffering:
http://virtuousgeek.org/blog/index.php/2009/05/
I don't know whether this entered mainline or whether it's related. BUT: I don't see tearing with 2.8.0 in compiz enabled X-Org anymore and I know that double buffering has an impact on reported framerates (compared to tearing withough v-sync):
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3591&p=3

--

Michael, please remove QGears2 benchmarks from the benchmark suite that you use for performance evaluation. That applies to the GTK benchmarks as well that you used in this article, which I critized already some time ago:
http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17726