Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: r300g: Is it really accelerated?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    134

    Default r300g: Is it really accelerated?

    Last night, I upgraded my Ubuntu 10.04 to 10.10, reinstlled x-eggers and got latest xorg 7.10 dev code. I was running r300g on R520.

    To test sanity of the graphics stack, I fired up PTS and run lightmarks 2008. My score was 6.8 fps!

    I my have to ask, are those drivers really used 3D HW accerleration? I mean is one have to expect a lightmarks of just 6.8 fps?

    Am I doing something wrong?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    134

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,003

    Default

    glxinfo | grep OpenGL

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darkbasic View Post
    glxinfo | grep OpenGL
    driver: Gallium 0.4 on R520
    OpenGL: 2.1 Mesa 7.10-deve

    running HW accelerated driver, however, not seeing the HW performance.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    343

    Default

    From the PTS report it looks as if you are booting an old kernel. For the rest it is hard to diagnose without seeing your log files. Try also with other applications than lightmarks.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tormod View Post
    From the PTS report it looks as if you are booting an old kernel. For the rest it is hard to diagnose without seeing your log files. Try also with other applications than lightmarks.
    I am runing: Kernel: 2.6.35-020635rc6-generic (x86_64)

    This one of the latest RC kernel from mainline ppa. I will try other benchs too.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beiruty View Post
    I am runing: Kernel: 2.6.35-020635rc6-generic (x86_64)

    This one of the latest RC kernel from mainline ppa. I will try other benchs too.
    The default maverick kernel is much newer You may also want to try the 2.6.36-RC kernel in the xorg-edgers maverick PPA.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tormod View Post
    The default maverick kernel is much newer You may also want to try the 2.6.36-RC kernel in the xorg-edgers maverick PPA.
    Sorry, my mistake, later tonight I will upgrade the kernel and try again.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beiruty View Post
    Sorry, my mistake, later tonight I will upgrade the kernel and try again.
    You've got recent kernels drm-next in the ubuntu mainline kernel page.

    http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/drm-next/

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rafirafi View Post
    You've got recent kernels drm-next in the ubuntu mainline kernel page.

    http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/drm-next/
    Would be different from this one:

    http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa...-rc6-maverick/

    What does drm-next signify?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •