The DRM-development builds are:
the tip of the drm-next head of Dave Airlie's drm-2.6 repository daily
But shouldn't be so differrent as r300g seems +/- stable ?
I know that Lightsmark is slow. Is any other driver faster? What about Intel? I remember when Lightsmark was released and by that time it was a damn demanding benchmark, I tried to run it on R500, it was slow even with fglrx IIRC.
I'm getting an average of 20 fps on an RV570. I can't recall that Intel is any faster.
21 fps with HD4200 IGP, proprietary drivers on Win7, 1920x1200...
... if anyone cares
A lot of the tests were running down around 7-8 fps.
Beiruty, if you make a compeling argument about why r300g+R520 should be fast in Lightsmark, we may have a look at what's slow there and fix it. But see if fglrx is faster first.
Also I had a discussion with the author of Lightsmark (he's from the same country as me, and presented some alpha version of Lightsmark for a local game development community here) a few years ago and IIRC indirect lighting (i.e. radiosity) in his benchmark was computed on the CPU, while direct lighting and shadows were computed on the GPU, so GPU performance might not matter that much if you're CPU-limited.
Thanks a lot for your feedback. I do not have flgrx to run at this time. I installed a new kernel .36 RC6 and now the score is at 6.93
I understand if the the bench is CPU limitied. My CPU is 2.4 Ghz and bit old too.
I will try other tests.
Since the there is lightmark 2008 for windows. I dual boot and run it under xp.
I douwnloaded and installed lightsmark 2008 V2 on winxp. It run and it sarted great between 30 fps and 60 fps with Audio Music. However, less than a minute screen corruption started showing and crashed the video card.
I guess AMD OpenGL on winxp are not that great either! But I saw amazing fps!
Open drivers bite the dust when compared to closed ones, it's nothing new...