On 19 January 2011 14:28, Mark Knecht <markkne...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Daniel Tihelka <dtihe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Mark Knecht <markkne...@gmail.com> wrote: > <SNIP> >>> >>> What do you see in glxgears? >>> >> I see this: >> Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be >> approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate. > > > I get this same message on my Intel graphics machine, and I get the > same frame rates which is what the message says... > >> 273 frames in 5.0 seconds = 54.532 FPS >> 299 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.634 FPS >> 301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.037 FPS >> 288 frames in 5.1 seconds = 56.852 FPS >> 212 frames in 5.0 seconds = 42.366 FPS <-- window maximized from here >> 222 frames in 5.0 seconds = 44.352 FPS >> 216 frames in 5.0 seconds = 43.021 FPS >> 205 frames in 5.0 seconds = 40.716 FPS >> >> It is not so much and I don't know if it is the top performance of the >> gallium driver (btw, I really believe it has large potential), or if it >> could be improved further more (e.g. by compilling lvm into it), but it is >> not critical for me now. >> Dan >> > > My ATI doesn't have the 'Running synchronized to the vertical refresh' > message. It does about 200FPS. On my wife's box I used the closed > source nvidia driver and get about 2500 FPS.
I have seen some seriously spurious results from glxgears over the years. I recall reading somewhere that if your fps is less that 100, it may be caused by your screen refresh rate being out of keel with your card or something like that. glxgears is good for one thing - showing you by means of a GUI that 3D graphics work on your set up. http://wiki.cchtml.com/index.php/Glxgears_is_not_a_Benchmark -- Regards, Mick
