Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question - Hardware

This is a discussion on Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question - Hardware ; I demand that Anton Ertl may or may not have written... > Mark Adams writes: >> Anton Ertl wrote: [snip] >> # glxinfo >> name of display: :0.0 >> libGL warning: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x4b > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 47

Thread: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

  1. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    I demand that Anton Ertl may or may not have written...

    > Mark Adams writes:
    >> Anton Ertl wrote:

    [snip]
    >> # glxinfo
    >> name of display: :0.0
    >> libGL warning: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x4b


    > I don't get this kind of warning. Could that be the reason you don't get
    > 3D acceleration (I don't know much about visuals)? [...]


    According to http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6689, it's harmless.

    > What is your default visual id (xdpyinfo|grep default)?


    My default is 0x23.

    [snip]
    >> OpenGL vendor string: Tungsten Graphics, Inc.
    >> OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI R200 20060327 AGP 1x x86/MMX/SSE2 TCL
    >> OpenGL version string: 1.3 Mesa 6.5


    > Looks good.


    Well, apart from the "AGP 1x" bit... mine says 8x.

    [snip]
    > My laptop (iBook G4 with Mobile Radeon 9200) is much weaker than your box,
    > and it gets 2185fps with a few tweaks in the options (and IIRC 1200fps
    > without any tweaks).


    Sounds interesting... what tweaks? (Limitation: the display consists of two
    monitors, total width 2304 pixels.)

    [snip]
    --
    | Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
    | RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
    | + Output less CO2 => avoid massive flooding. TIME IS RUNNING OUT *FAST*.

    "That's user, u s r, and then there's a space..."

  2. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    Anton Ertl wrote:
    > Mark Adams writes:
    >> Anton Ertl wrote:
    >>> Mark Adams writes:
    >>>> Stefan Patric wrote:
    >>>>> Also, check the driver for that Radeon card. Is it the one that is
    >>>>> specifically for that card and enables the 3D rendering or just a
    >>>>> "generic" one?
    >>>> It's the OS fglrx driver. I think it may be the generic OS Radeon
    >>>> driver. It allows 3D direct rendering with AIGLX.
    >>> Well, does it say in /etc/X11/xorg.conf
    >>>
    >>> Driver "radeon"
    >>>
    >>> or
    >>>
    >>> Driver "fglrx"

    >> Hmm. Looks like something may have changed because I'm get the answer
    >> "ati". I expected something else.

    >
    > Ok, "ati" is the general free driver for ATI cards, and it should
    > select the radeon driver if you have a Radeon card; apparently it
    > works for you (it usually did not for me).


    It's possible that "ati" is exactly what I should be seeing there.
    Frankly, I set this up months ago and don't really remember a lot of
    details. It seems my notes are all about Beryl.

    >
    >> # glxinfo
    >> name of display: :0.0
    >> libGL warning: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x4b

    >
    > I don't get this kind of warning. Could that be the reason you don't
    > get 3D acceleration (I don't know much about visuals)? What is your
    > default visual id (xdpyinfo|grep default)?
    >
    >> display: :0 screen: 0
    >> direct rendering: Yes
    >> server glx vendor string: SGI
    >> server glx version string: 1.2
    >>
    >> OpenGL vendor string: Tungsten Graphics, Inc.
    >> OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI R200 20060327 AGP 1x x86/MMX/SSE2 TCL
    >> OpenGL version string: 1.3 Mesa 6.5

    >
    > Looks good.
    >
    >> # glxgears
    >> libGL warning: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x4b
    >> 1046 frames in 5.0 seconds = 209.169 FPS
    >> 1068 frames in 5.0 seconds = 213.451 FPS
    >> 1069 frames in 5.0 seconds = 213.653 FPS
    >> 1062 frames in 5.0 seconds = 212.399 FPS
    >> qq1755 frames in 5.0 seconds = 350.905 FPS

    >
    > Looks like you get no 3D acceleration, probably because of the issue
    > that caused the warning. If you google for that warning, you will
    > find that many people have this problem, and it's apparently related
    > to the software versions that they are using.
    >
    > The strange thing is that, even though I have
    >
    > (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x23
    >
    > in /var/log/Xorg.0.log for all my visuals, I don't get the libGL
    > warning, and I get a decent speed for glxgears.
    >
    >> I distinctly recall seeing a line in some of
    >> this output somewhere that said something like "DirectRendering = yes".
    >> I don't see that anywhere now.

    >
    > It's a little different, but it's there.
    >
    >> I know I can fire up Beryl and get effects that I don't believe would
    >> run at all without hardware rendering, and the FPS rate was never much
    >> better when I had confirmed hardware rendering.

    >
    > My laptop (iBook G4 with Mobile Radeon 9200) is much weaker than your
    > box, and it gets 2185fps with a few tweaks in the options (and IIRC
    > 1200fps without any tweaks). So I believe that your 3D rendering is
    > done in software; as for effects, as long as they are implemented in
    > software, you will see them, but they will be slow.
    >


    Not having the rendering done in the hardware would probably account for
    the crappy frame rates, but what else in the world can I do to get the
    hardware to render?!

    >> egrep -i "glx|drm" /var/log/Xorg.0.log

    >

    # egrep -i "glx|drm" /var/log/Xorg.0.log
    (II) LoadModule: "glx"
    (II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/extensions/libglx.so
    (II) Module glx: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
    (==) AIGLX enabled
    (II) Loading extension GLX
    (II) Loading sub module "drm"
    (II) LoadModule: "drm"
    (II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/linux/libdrm.so
    (II) Module drm: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
    drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0
    drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device or address)
    drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device or address)
    drmOpenDevice: Open failed
    drmOpenByBusid: Searching for BusID pci:0000:01:00.0
    drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0
    drmOpenDevice: open result is 10, (OK)
    drmOpenByBusid: drmOpenMinor returns 10
    drmOpenByBusid: drmGetBusid reports pci:0000:01:00.0
    drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0
    drmOpenDevice: open result is 10, (OK)
    drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0
    drmOpenDevice: open result is 10, (OK)
    drmOpenByBusid: Searching for BusID pci:0000:01:00.0
    drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0
    drmOpenDevice: open result is 10, (OK)
    drmOpenByBusid: drmOpenMinor returns 10
    drmOpenByBusid: drmGetBusid reports pci:0000:01:00.0
    (II) RADEON(0): [drm] DRM interface version 1.2
    (II) RADEON(0): [drm] created "radeon" driver at busid "pci:0000:01:00.0"
    (II) RADEON(0): [drm] added 8192 byte SAREA at 0xf8c4c000
    (II) RADEON(0): [drm] mapped SAREA 0xf8c4c000 to 0xb7add000
    (II) RADEON(0): [drm] framebuffer handle = 0xe8000000
    (II) RADEON(0): [drm] added 1 reserved context for kernel
    (II) RADEON(0): [drm] register handle = 0xff8f0000
    (II) RADEON(0): [drm] installed DRM signal handler
    (II) RADEON(0): [drm] Added 32 65536 byte vertex/indirect buffers
    (II) RADEON(0): [drm] Mapped 32 vertex/indirect buffers
    (II) RADEON(0): [drm] dma control initialized, using IRQ 21
    (II) RADEON(0): [drm] Initialized kernel GART heap manager, 5111808
    (WW) RADEON(0): Option "DisableGLXRootClipping" is not used
    (WW) RADEON(0): Option "AddARGBGLXVisuals" is not used
    drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0
    drmOpenDevice: open result is 11, (OK)
    drmOpenByBusid: Searching for BusID pci:0000:01:00.0
    drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0
    drmOpenDevice: open result is 11, (OK)
    drmOpenByBusid: drmOpenMinor returns 11
    drmOpenByBusid: drmGetBusid reports pci:0000:01:00.0
    (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x23
    (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x24
    (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x25
    (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x26
    (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x27
    (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x28
    (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x29
    (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x2a
    (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x2b
    (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x2c
    (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x2d
    (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x2e
    (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x2f
    (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x30
    (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x31
    (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x32
    (II) AIGLX: Loaded and initialized /usr/lib/dri/r200_dri.so
    (II) GLX: Initialized DRI GL provider for screen 0


    > Comparing your output to that of my laptop (where 3D acceleration
    > works), I did not notice any signficant differences.
    >


    I've got a Toshiba Satellite A105-S4274 right here running the same
    release of Mandriva on an Intel 945GM Express chipset (Intel Graphics
    Media Adaptor 950 with up to 128MB memory) and it's getting glxgears
    frames around 1200 fps -- the output I've been grepping from the configs
    is, in the expected ways, identical to this desktop.

    And that's what got me started on this whole road. Beryl runs smooth as
    owl snot on the Toshiba, well except that I can't get water effects on
    it either. I have stopped using Beryl on this desktop and I'm still
    fighting slow window rendering (remember my complaint about Firefox).
    The graphics look good, stuff runs (Beryl and Compiz run with most
    effects, GoogleEarth seems fine, etc.) but it's just soooo sssllooooowww.

    And the idea occurred to me: why not get a faster computer with newer
    architecture?

    Now, I'd love to solve all this with a stick of RAM and/or a $150-ish
    video card, but I'm not sure how realistic that is -- nobody I've had
    this discussion with in Usenet or on the Mandriva support boards has any
    idea why rendering is so slow on this desktop.

    The most likely culprits just seem to be the ATI drivers. What is your
    sense about that?

    > - anton


    And thanks for your attention on this.

    --
    Mark E. Adams, 2004 -- drop the "dot" to email me.
    http://adamslan.shyper.com -*- Mandriva User# 263042

    CONSIDER: ===========---------,,,,,,,,,............. . . . . .
    Barth's Distinction:
    There are two types of people: those who divide people into two
    types, and those who don't.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  3. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    Anton Ertl wrote:

    rendering.>

    >> I've done well with my current machine for more than five years now, in
    >> part, thanks to the fact that I bought pretty good stuff to begin with.
    >> The sun has pretty much set on this architecture though and it's time
    >> to go PCIE and SATA, etc. I figure the extra power will provide for
    >> chotchkies that come down the road in the future. Overkill? Yes, but
    >> not a bad investment as I see it.

    >
    > It's not guaranteed to give you accelerated 3D and thus decent
    > performance under Beryl, though.
    >


    In the words of Sol Tigh: "Craaaap."

    --
    Mark E. Adams, 2004 -- drop the "dot" to email me.
    http://adamslan.shyper.com -*- Mandriva User# 263042

    CONSIDER: ===========---------,,,,,,,,,............. . . . . .
    To see a need and wait to be asked, is to already refuse.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  4. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    Mark Adams wrote:

    > Greetings.
    >
    > I'm looking for advice/recommendations on a new mobo and other parts.
    > My current desktop is an Intel WN845D, 2.6 GHz P4, 1 GB of RAM, AGP4
    > slot. I'm running Mandriva 2007 and I just don't have enough horsepower
    > to run the Beryl desktop.
    >
    > As is when I open a new Firefox window, the CPU load jumps to 100% and
    > cruises there for several seconds while the window opens. If I've got
    > two or three torrents downloading and some other process running in the
    > background, I may wait 20 or 30 seconds for the window to open. I
    > initially thought this might be because my ATI Radeon 9250 was bogging
    > down, but that wouldn't account for the high CPU load.
    >
    > At any rate, time to upgrade. I am shooting for something like this:
    >
    > Intel Core 2 Duo at about 2.3 GHz
    > 2 GB RAM
    > Nvidia PCI express graphics
    > Gigabyte ethernet
    > Two SATA hard drives
    > A DVD writer (SATA?)
    > The usual handful of USB, serial, parallel ports,
    > Firewire ports for my video camera (PCI card is okay here)
    > And a powersupply that will put up a reliable, honest 500 Watts.
    > Oh and a snazzy black, half-tower case that isn't made of some exotic
    > material like aluminum and doesn't have windows and lights in it.
    >
    > I think that's about it. Proposed budget is around $700, but I am
    > somewhat flexible.
    >
    > I know I want the Core 2 Duo, but I have no idea what mobo to build this
    > around. Anybody have any suggestions about any of this?
    >
    > Thanks.
    >

    Do you need Beryl? To me it is just eye-candy and completely useless.

    Doug.
    --
    We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.
    - Winston Churchill.


  5. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    Doug Laidlaw wrote:
    > Mark Adams wrote:
    >
    >> Greetings.
    >>
    >> I'm looking for advice/recommendations on a new mobo and other parts.
    >> My current desktop is an Intel WN845D, 2.6 GHz P4, 1 GB of RAM, AGP4
    >> slot. I'm running Mandriva 2007 and I just don't have enough horsepower
    >> to run the Beryl desktop.
    >>
    >> As is when I open a new Firefox window, the CPU load jumps to 100% and
    >> cruises there for several seconds while the window opens. If I've got
    >> two or three torrents downloading and some other process running in the
    >> background, I may wait 20 or 30 seconds for the window to open. I
    >> initially thought this might be because my ATI Radeon 9250 was bogging
    >> down, but that wouldn't account for the high CPU load.
    >>
    >> At any rate, time to upgrade. I am shooting for something like this:
    >>
    >> Intel Core 2 Duo at about 2.3 GHz
    >> 2 GB RAM
    >> Nvidia PCI express graphics
    >> Gigabyte ethernet
    >> Two SATA hard drives
    >> A DVD writer (SATA?)
    >> The usual handful of USB, serial, parallel ports,
    >> Firewire ports for my video camera (PCI card is okay here)
    >> And a powersupply that will put up a reliable, honest 500 Watts.
    >> Oh and a snazzy black, half-tower case that isn't made of some exotic
    >> material like aluminum and doesn't have windows and lights in it.
    >>
    >> I think that's about it. Proposed budget is around $700, but I am
    >> somewhat flexible.
    >>
    >> I know I want the Core 2 Duo, but I have no idea what mobo to build this
    >> around. Anybody have any suggestions about any of this?
    >>
    >> Thanks.
    >>

    > Do you need Beryl? To me it is just eye-candy and completely useless.
    >
    > Doug.


    Hey Doug,

    That's the thing -- while I'd like the option to use the eye candy, I am
    currently using KDM.

    I'm seeing these performance issues under KDM with direct rendering
    configured.

    --
    Mark E. Adams, 2004 -- drop the "dot" to email me.
    http://adamslan.shyper.com -*- Mandriva User# 263042

    CONSIDER: ===========---------,,,,,,,,,............. . . . . .
    "So why don't you make like a tree, and get outta here."
    -- Biff in "Back to the Future"

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  6. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote:
    >>Is hardware accelerated OpenGL enabled?
    >>
    >>glxinfo | grep direct

    >
    > Actually that's not a reliable indicator. E.g., I have hardware
    > accelerated OpenGL on my machine. If I run glxinfo on another machine
    > with DISPLAY set to my machine, it says:
    >
    > [b6:~:6400] glxinfo | egrep -A2 "direct rendering|OpenGL vendor"
    > direct rendering: No


    It is true that you don't get hardware accelerated direct rendering when
    using a remote display. In fact, with X.org 7.0 and older you didn't get
    any acceleration at all but reverted to mesa software OpenGL when using a
    remote display.

    Since X.org 7.1 hardware accelerated indirect rendering is supported. This
    means that you will be able to use hardware accelerated features on a
    graphics card even though the graphics card and the display is connected
    on another machine than the machine running the OpenGL application. Of
    course with indirect rendering you can't expect the same performance as if
    the application would be running on the local machine as the network most
    likely will become a bottleneck.

    I haven't tried hardware accelerated indirect rendering with X.org 7.1 or
    7.2 myself. Some years ago I used an SGI machine as display to remotely
    login to a linux server and start tux racer. The SGI X server was capable
    of hardware accelerated indirect rendering.

    regards Henrik
    --
    The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is:
    hc1(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers:
    root@localhost postmaster@localhost


  7. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    Mark Adams wrote:
    >> Is hardware accelerated OpenGL enabled?


    > Yes.


    Ok, but you still have very low OpenGL performance. The performance seems
    even worse than what I have seen with software only (Mesa) OpenGL on a
    Radeon 9250. I have seen 816 fps in glxgears with software rendering on a
    9250. However, then the conditions were:

    16 bit color depth
    4x AGP
    dual opteron
    And, maybe most important, the machine was almost idle except for running
    the benchmark.

    > Okay, but Mem is only used at about 50% (1011M with 503M free). If it's
    > only using half my RAM now, would it still allocate only 50% and swap
    > less if I increased the installed RAM?


    If you have more than 500 MB free RAM at least your process should not be
    waiting for being swapped out to disk.

    > I can't get AIGLX to work with the proprietary driver, so I run the OS.


    With your card you should be able to get good performanc with the OS
    driver. A few things to try:

    Add the following row to the driver section in xorg.conf:

    AGPMode=4

    Setting AGP speed to 4x might be able to increase performance for both 2D
    and 3D graphics.

    Also, it seems as if your Firefox process is not consuming CPU and it is
    not short on RAM. Then the questions remains: What is firefox wating for?
    Maybe it is waiting for disk? Maybe it is some kind of network or DNS
    misconfiguration?

    Are you able to start firefox from a command line window like xterm? If
    so, you might be able to do something like:

    strace -f firefox

    To see what the process is waiting for.

    regards Henrik
    --
    The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is:
    hc1(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers:
    root@localhost postmaster@localhost


  8. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    Darren Salt writes:
    >I demand that Anton Ertl may or may not have written...
    >
    >> Mark Adams writes:
    >>> OpenGL vendor string: Tungsten Graphics, Inc.
    >>> OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI R200 20060327 AGP 1x x86/MMX/SSE2 TCL
    >>> OpenGL version string: 1.3 Mesa 6.5

    >
    >> Looks good.

    >
    >Well, apart from the "AGP 1x" bit... mine says 8x.


    Easy to fix with the AGPMode Option, but I doubt that it has anything
    to do with the problem at hand.

    >[snip]
    >> My laptop (iBook G4 with Mobile Radeon 9200) is much weaker than your box,
    >> and it gets 2185fps with a few tweaks in the options (and IIRC 1200fps
    >> without any tweaks).

    >
    >Sounds interesting... what tweaks? (Limitation: the display consists of two
    >monitors, total width 2304 pixels.)


    In the Device section of the xorg.conf file:

    Option "GARTSize" "16" #up to 64 on other systems
    Option "ColorTiling" "on"
    Option "EnablePageFlip" "on"
    Option "AccelMethod" "XAA"
    Option "AGPMode" "4"

    In addition, on the command line:

    export hyperz=true #only affects R200 driver

    - anton
    --
    M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
    anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
    http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html

  9. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    Mark Adams writes:
    >Anton Ertl wrote:
    >> Mark Adams writes:
    >>> # glxinfo

    ....
    >>> OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI R200 20060327 AGP 1x x86/MMX/SSE2 TCL


    One thing I note is that I used the following version of Mesa DRI R200
    in my experiments with the 9250: 20060602 (what comes with Debian Etch).

    >Now, I'd love to solve all this with a stick of RAM and/or a $150-ish
    >video card, but I'm not sure how realistic that is -- nobody I've had
    >this discussion with in Usenet or on the Mandriva support boards has any
    >idea why rendering is so slow on this desktop.
    >
    >The most likely culprits just seem to be the ATI drivers. What is your
    >sense about that?


    I also think it's a software problem, either the version you use, or
    some configuration problem.

    I have tried seven different Radeon "cards" on three systems, all with
    Debian Etch and the free "radeon" driver, and on all of them hardware
    3D acceleration worked and I got glxgears frame rates in the
    thousands:

    Laptop: Mobile Radeon 9200
    AGP system (Athlon 64): 9250, 9600, 9600XT
    PCIe system (Core 2 Duo): X550, X800GTO, X850XT

    I also did some experiments with some of the PCIe system
    configurations with some Gentoo Live CD, a Sabayon Live CD, and with
    the Knoppix 5.2 DVD included in c't 7/07, and hardware 3D worked
    whenever I tried it (and Beryl on the Knoppix DVD worked nicely after
    fixing the problem below).

    Probably not helpful for you, but maybe interesting to others: One
    invariant in these experiments was that, whenever the distribution
    generated an xorg.conf file with 'Driver "ati"', X did not work, and
    that problem could be fixed by changing that to 'Driver "radeon"';
    IIRC with the Knoppix DVD X died with the "ati" setting, so Knoppix
    fell back to using the totally unaccelerated "vesa" driver; using
    "radeon" fixed that, too.

    Anyway, if the Mandriva people feel that they have problems with the
    Radeon driver, maybe the Radeon driver distributed with Mandriva is
    flawed. Or maybe the people there know as little what the problem is
    as I do, and a few of those then point somewhere (whereas the wiser
    ones shut up).

    One thing you could try is to see if the Knoppix 5.2 DVD works with
    Beryl on your hardware (if you can get it; this version is not
    available for download, and basically only available with c't 7/07:-().
    Interestingly,
    says:

    |The most successful candidates with DRI and transparency in our tests
    |were "older" ATI cards (i.e. Radeon Mobility) and Intel onboard
    |graphics chipsets. With these cards, many features of beryl worked
    |flawlessly and stable.

    A Radeon 9250 sounds like an ideal card.

    - anton
    --
    M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
    anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
    http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html

  10. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    I demand that Anton Ertl may or may not have written...

    > Darren Salt writes:
    >> I demand that Anton Ertl may or may not have written...

    [snip]
    >>> My laptop (iBook G4 with Mobile Radeon 9200) is much weaker than your
    >>> box, and it gets 2185fps with a few tweaks in the options (and IIRC
    >>> 1200fps without any tweaks).


    >> Sounds interesting... what tweaks? (Limitation: the display consists of
    >> two monitors, total width 2304 pixels.)


    > In the Device section of the xorg.conf file:


    > Option "GARTSize" "16" #up to 64 on other systems


    Hmm. How does this differ from the AGPSize option? Just an alias? (I have
    that set to 128; memory says that the BIOS has the same setting, and the card
    is claimed to have 128MB on-board.)

    > Option "ColorTiling" "on"


    On by default, according to Xorg.0.log, but disabled due to the total display
    width being greater than 2048 pixels.

    > Option "EnablePageFlip" "on"


    Enabled.

    > Option "AccelMethod" "XAA"


    I remember EXA working well, then not working well after an upgrade
    (unfortunately, I'm not certain exactly which upgrade, but I suspect
    something in X.org 6.9->7.1). Which is unfortunate, because it made xfwm4's
    compositing work well.

    > Option "AGPMode" "4"


    Both board and card support 8x. Is there a good reason for selecting 4x
    despite this?

    > In addition, on the command line:
    > export hyperz=true #only affects R200 driver


    That does make a noticeable difference, but not for glxgears :-)

    1150fps at default size, 150fps at 1024x768 (full-screen on the smaller
    monitor).

    (Basically, I was hoping that I'd missed something...)

    OTOH, I'm considering a 9550; ideally, I'd find something a bit better, but
    they seem rather thin on the ground :-\

    --
    | Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
    | RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
    | + Output less CO2 => avoid massive flooding. TIME IS RUNNING OUT *FAST*.

    2400 baud makes you want to get out and push!

  11. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    >
    > Abit may not support Linux, but Linux, later kernels at least, does
    > support uGuru.


    Not very well. I'm running a 2.6.20 kernel and I've loaded the abituguru
    module. I can read voltages but not temperatures. My advice to anyone
    building a Linux system is to stay away from Abit. Abit does other bad
    things. They slightly overclock their boards so they can win benchmarks,
    if you want to run at the rated speed you have to change the clock speed
    in the BIOS. This wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that it screws
    up Linux's ability to read the clock speed. If the clock isn't set back
    to the rated speed. When the clock is set to anything else
    sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_available_frequencies reports
    1000000 800000 600000

    instead of the real frequencies.

    I also wasn't able to use the OnDemand speed governor with the 2.6.19
    kernel. If I used it the system was unstable. I've been using the
    Performance speed governor which doesn't allow speed changes, it's stable
    when that governor is used. I haven't tried OnDemand with 2.6.20 so I
    don't know if it's been fixed.

  12. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:09:41 -0600, Mark Adams wrote:

    > Stefan Patric wrote:
    >> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:01:44 -0600, Mark Adams wrote:
    >>
    >>> Greetings.
    >>>
    >>> I'm looking for advice/recommendations on a new mobo and other parts.
    >>> My current desktop is an Intel WN845D, 2.6 GHz P4, 1 GB of RAM, AGP4
    >>> slot. I'm running Mandriva 2007 and I just don't have enough horsepower
    >>> to run the Beryl desktop.

    >>
    >> Sure you have enough horsepower. 2.6 GHz P4? Plenty of power. What you
    >> need is more RAM. I have friends running 3D desktops on 32-bit notebooks
    >> in the 1.6 to 2.0 GHz range, and all run smoothly.
    >>

    >
    > I may have not been clear about this point -- I can run the 3D eyecandy,
    > but it's too slow to be useful. Oh! but I can't get some of the choicer
    > effects, like water.
    >
    >>
    >>> As is when I open a new Firefox window, the CPU load jumps to 100% and
    >>> cruises there for several seconds while the window opens. If I've got
    >>> two or three torrents downloading and some other process running in the
    >>> background, I may wait 20 or 30 seconds for the window to open. I
    >>> initially thought this might be because my ATI Radeon 9250 was bogging
    >>> down, but that wouldn't account for the high CPU load.

    >>
    >> Extra RAM will help. Check your swap. If it's getting hit hard or is
    >> nearly full, then not enough RAM is the problem.
    >>

    >
    > Swap isn't taking much of a hit at all. Gkrellm says it's 743M free of
    > 996M. Pumping Azureus full of downloads will bump that up to something
    > more like 50%, but I've never seen it higher.
    >
    >> Also, check the driver for that Radeon card. Is it the one that is
    >> specifically for that card and enables the 3D rendering or just a
    >> "generic" one?

    >
    > It's the OS fglrx driver. I think it may be the generic OS Radeon
    > driver. It allows 3D direct rendering with AIGLX.


    You should get the dedicated ATI driver. It will improve graphic
    performance tremendously. My 64-bit AMD system uses a Geforce 6600 PCI-X
    card and with the Fedora Core 6 generic 'nv' driver, I only get between
    100 and 150 fps on glxgears, full screen. With the 'nvidia' driver from
    livna, I'll expect 8 to 10 times faster frame rates. (I haven't bothered
    installing the native nVidia driver, since it was a low priority as far as
    upgrading the system.)


    >>> At any rate, time to upgrade. I am shooting for something like this:
    >>>
    >>> Intel Core 2 Duo at about 2.3 GHz
    >>> 2 GB RAM
    >>> Nvidia PCI express graphics
    >>> Gigabyte ethernet
    >>> Two SATA hard drives
    >>> A DVD writer (SATA?)
    >>> The usual handful of USB, serial, parallel ports,
    >>> Firewire ports for my video camera (PCI card is okay here)
    >>> And a powersupply that will put up a reliable, honest 500 Watts.
    >>> Oh and a snazzy black, half-tower case that isn't made of some exotic
    >>> material like aluminum and doesn't have windows and lights in it.

    >>
    >> Looks good. I'd suggest considering MBs only with an nVidia chipset,
    >> since nVidia has native Linux drivers.

    >
    > How about Intel boards. I'm looking hard at something like the DG965WH.
    > The DG965 series come with something like the GMA X3000 onboard
    > graphics. Beyond onboards, I'm looking at buying an Nvidia PCIE card.


    I'm not up on Intel boards. In fact, I avoid them. Have read a lot about
    incompatibility issues with them and Linux -- mainly Intel chipsets,
    onboard graphics and ethernet chips -- especially since the Microsoft and
    Intel collaboration to develop hardware that's "Vista Ready." I'm sure
    this will change after the Linux community has time to write drivers,
    etc.

    >>> I know I want the Core 2 Duo, but I have no idea what mobo to build this
    >>> around. Anybody have any suggestions about any of this?

    >>
    >> Go here and plug in your requirements: http://www.motherboards.org/mobot/
    >> It'll spit out all the boards that satisfy them.

    >
    > I can't get anything on core 2 duo boards. 8-\


    MOBOT is a VERY picky database. For example, if you specify solely a Core
    2 Duo CPU motherboard, there might not be any that take ONLY that chip,
    but there may be a lot that take BOTH Core Duo AND Core 2 Duo CPUs, which
    MOBOT considers not to be the same motherboard as ones that ONLY takes the
    Core 2.

    Start simple: enter only the socket type of the CPU you want; then, if
    you get anything, search again, but with the form factor or chip set or
    memory type or manufacturer, and so forth, one requirement at a time in
    order of importance. If you enter too many requirements to begin with,
    there may not be any motherboards that fulfills all those requirements,
    and you'll get nothing.

    Stef

  13. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    Darren Salt writes:
    >I demand that Anton Ertl may or may not have written...
    >
    >> Darren Salt writes:
    >>> I demand that Anton Ertl may or may not have written...

    >[snip]
    >>>> My laptop (iBook G4 with Mobile Radeon 9200) is much weaker than your
    >>>> box, and it gets 2185fps with a few tweaks in the options (and IIRC
    >>>> 1200fps without any tweaks).

    >
    >>> Sounds interesting... what tweaks? (Limitation: the display consists of
    >>> two monitors, total width 2304 pixels.)

    >
    >> In the Device section of the xorg.conf file:

    >
    >> Option "GARTSize" "16" #up to 64 on other systems

    >
    >Hmm. How does this differ from the AGPSize option? Just an alias? (I have
    >that set to 128; memory says that the BIOS has the same setting, and the card
    >is claimed to have 128MB on-board.)


    I have no idea. I have never heard of AGPSize, and neither option is
    documented in radeon(4) or Xorg.conf(5).

    >> Option "ColorTiling" "on"

    >
    >On by default, according to Xorg.0.log, but disabled due to the total display
    >width being greater than 2048 pixels.


    Yes, some options are on by default. Actually only the following is
    really needed:

    >> Option "EnablePageFlip" "on"

    >
    >Enabled.
    >
    >> Option "AccelMethod" "XAA"

    >
    >I remember EXA working well, then not working well after an upgrade
    >(unfortunately, I'm not certain exactly which upgrade, but I suspect
    >something in X.org 6.9->7.1). Which is unfortunate, because it made xfwm4's
    >compositing work well.


    I just played around with various combinations of all these options,
    and this combination turned out to be best for IIRC UT2004
    performance.

    >> Option "AGPMode" "4"

    >
    >Both board and card support 8x. Is there a good reason for selecting 4x
    >despite this?


    8x made no difference in the benchmarks I ran (UT2004 and glxgears),
    and my guess is that 4x is safer (although probably not
    significantly).

    >> In addition, on the command line:
    >> export hyperz=true #only affects R200 driver

    >
    >That does make a noticeable difference, but not for glxgears :-)


    On the Athlon 64 box with a Radeon 9250 it sped up glxgears from IIRC
    2200fps to 3500fps; it also helped on the iBook, but I don't remember
    the exact values. It doesn't make a difference to UT2004.

    >OTOH, I'm considering a 9550; ideally, I'd find something a bit better, but
    >they seem rather thin on the ground :-\


    The Radeon X850XT AGP is still available, and not too expensive (~EUR
    120,-). Alternatively, a little less powerful and quite a bit
    cheaper (and not much more expensive than a 9550): X800GTO (EUR 72,-).

    If you go for the 9550, for some applications (like UT2004) you should
    get a version with a 128-bit memory interface and 256MB RAM.

    - anton
    --
    M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
    anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
    http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html

  14. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    Mark Adams wrote:
    > John-Paul Stewart wrote:
    >> Mark Adams wrote:
    >>> # glxgears
    >>> libGL warning: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x4b
    >>> 1046 frames in 5.0 seconds = 209.169 FPS
    >>> 1068 frames in 5.0 seconds = 213.451 FPS
    >>> 1069 frames in 5.0 seconds = 213.653 FPS
    >>> 1062 frames in 5.0 seconds = 212.399 FPS
    >>> qq1755 frames in 5.0 seconds = 350.905 FPS

    >> Those numbers don't look right. You should be seeing around 10x those
    >> numbers, given the description of your hardware. (Have a look at
    >> http://www.free3d.org/ for results from other users of similar hardware
    >> with the open source drivers.)
    >>
    >> Something is wrong with your configuration, but I have no idea what it
    >> might be. Everything else you've posted in this thread (except for the
    >> benchmark numbers) looks fine, AFAICT.

    >
    > I'll have another go at free3d.org, but I was over this and over it on
    > the ClubMandriva support forums and the developers there wound up
    > pointing fingers at the ATI driver; the open source driver is a better
    > hack than the proprietary driver, but it's still not good enough to work
    > the hardware properly.


    So you've tried the closed-source fglrx driver and have now gone back to
    using the open source driver, right? In that case, did you re-install
    the the Mesa libraries after uninstalling fglrx? I found that I needed
    to re-install the libgl1-mesa-glx package (Debian/testing, package name
    will vary by distro) in order for the open source driver to function
    properly. This glitch may have been Debian-specific or a result of
    something I did wrong, but it still might be worth a try on your system.

  15. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    Stefan Patric writes:
    >You should get the dedicated ATI driver.


    I assume you mean ATI's proprietary driver "fglrx".

    > It will improve graphic
    >performance tremendously. My 64-bit AMD system uses a Geforce 6600 PCI-X
    >card and with the Fedora Core 6 generic 'nv' driver, I only get between
    >100 and 150 fps on glxgears, full screen.


    Depending on your screen resolution, that's not bad. However, it's
    customary to report glxgears numbers for the default size, and they
    are more comparable then.

    Anyway, the nv driver does not support hardware 3D accelaration,
    thanks to Nvidia not providing the necessary programming information.
    In contrast, the radeon driver the OP is using does support hardware
    3D acceleration on all Radeons up to the R400 series (i.e., anything
    below Radeon x1000), thanks to ATI providing the programming
    infomation for the R100 and R200 series; the OP has an R200-based
    card, so he should get 3D acceleration, but apparently doesn't.

    > With the 'nvidia' driver from
    >livna, I'll expect 8 to 10 times faster frame rates.


    Yes, hardware acceleration will do that for you. But the speed
    difference between radeon and fglrx is much less: From
    <2005Jan13.200644@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>:

    Driver fps
    fglrx (proprietary): 1572 fps
    radeon Xfree86-4.3: 1448 fps
    radeon X.org-6.8.1: 1526 fps

    >I'm not up on Intel boards. In fact, I avoid them. Have read a lot about
    >incompatibility issues with them and Linux -- mainly Intel chipsets,
    >onboard graphics and ethernet chips -- especially since the Microsoft and
    >Intel collaboration to develop hardware that's "Vista Ready." I'm sure
    >this will change after the Linux community has time to write drivers,
    >etc.


    You don't know what you are talking about. Intel has very good Linux
    support, including supplying programming information and free drivers
    for the graphics chips (they are pretty much the only game in town in
    that respect) and better Linux support for their wireless chips than
    most other manufacturers. Their Ethernet chips give very good
    performance under Linux and have been very reliable in my experience.

    I don't have experience with Intel boards, but they have a good
    reputation.

    - anton
    --
    M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
    anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
    http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html

  16. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    Anton Ertl wrote:
    > Mark Adams writes:
    >> Anton Ertl wrote:
    >>> Mark Adams writes:
    >>>> # glxinfo

    > ...
    >>>> OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI R200 20060327 AGP 1x x86/MMX/SSE2 TCL

    >
    > One thing I note is that I used the following version of Mesa DRI R200
    > in my experiments with the 9250: 20060602 (what comes with Debian Etch).
    >


    Here's something I probably should have mentioned earlier. I have Ubuntu
    Edgy installed on this machine (triple boot XP/Mdrv2007/Ubuntu6.10. I
    don't actually use Ubuntu, but I installed it to see what all the fuss
    was about. I configured Beryl on it immediately after I installed it
    and it runs much more smoothly. I don't have the same problems under
    Ubuntu that I have under Mandriva.

    Just wanted to get that out there. It seems to be a stinging indictment
    of Mandriva, though the framerate I'm getting under Ubuntu is only about
    698 fps.

    Also, remember the problem I'm talking about here is NOT RELATED TO
    BERYL. I'm seeing these slowdowns under KWin -- not just Beryl.

    >> Now, I'd love to solve all this with a stick of RAM and/or a $150-ish
    >> video card, but I'm not sure how realistic that is -- nobody I've had
    >> this discussion with in Usenet or on the Mandriva support boards has any
    >> idea why rendering is so slow on this desktop.
    >>
    >> The most likely culprits just seem to be the ATI drivers. What is your
    >> sense about that?

    >
    > I also think it's a software problem, either the version you use, or
    > some configuration problem.
    >


    See above

    >
    > Anyway, if the Mandriva people feel that they have problems with the
    > Radeon driver, maybe the Radeon driver distributed with Mandriva is
    > flawed. Or maybe the people there know as little what the problem is
    > as I do, and a few of those then point somewhere (whereas the wiser
    > ones shut up).


    I agree.

    >
    > One thing you could try is to see if the Knoppix 5.2 DVD works with
    > Beryl on your hardware (if you can get it; this version is not
    > available for download, and basically only available with c't 7/07:-().
    > Interestingly,
    > says:


    I'm not finding that for download and frankly, I just don't think it
    would tell me much in light of the info from Ubuntu above.

    >
    > |The most successful candidates with DRI and transparency in our tests
    > |were "older" ATI cards (i.e. Radeon Mobility) and Intel onboard
    > |graphics chipsets. With these cards, many features of beryl worked
    > |flawlessly and stable.
    >
    > A Radeon 9250 sounds like an ideal card.
    >


    Craaaap. And the fact is I have another brand new 9250 in a box in the
    closet. I'm half tempted to swap out these cards and see if it makes a
    difference.

    Thanks much Anton. Let me know if you think of anything else.

    --
    Mark E. Adams, 2004 -- drop the "dot" to email me.
    http://adamslan.shyper.com -*- Mandriva User# 263042

    CONSIDER: ===========---------,,,,,,,,,............. . . . . .
    The world is full of people who have never, since childhood, met an
    open doorway with an open mind.
    -- E.B. White


    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  17. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    John-Paul Stewart wrote:
    > Mark Adams wrote:
    >> John-Paul Stewart wrote:
    >>> Mark Adams wrote:
    >>>> # glxgears
    >>>> libGL warning: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x4b
    >>>> 1046 frames in 5.0 seconds = 209.169 FPS
    >>>> 1068 frames in 5.0 seconds = 213.451 FPS
    >>>> 1069 frames in 5.0 seconds = 213.653 FPS
    >>>> 1062 frames in 5.0 seconds = 212.399 FPS
    >>>> qq1755 frames in 5.0 seconds = 350.905 FPS
    >>> Those numbers don't look right. You should be seeing around 10x
    >>> those numbers, given the description of your hardware. (Have a look
    >>> at http://www.free3d.org/ for results from other users of similar
    >>> hardware with the open source drivers.)
    >>>
    >>> Something is wrong with your configuration, but I have no idea what
    >>> it might be. Everything else you've posted in this thread (except
    >>> for the benchmark numbers) looks fine, AFAICT.

    >>
    >> I'll have another go at free3d.org, but I was over this and over it on
    >> the ClubMandriva support forums and the developers there wound up
    >> pointing fingers at the ATI driver; the open source driver is a better
    >> hack than the proprietary driver, but it's still not good enough to
    >> work the hardware properly.

    >
    > So you've tried the closed-source fglrx driver and have now gone back to
    > using the open source driver, right? In that case, did you re-install
    > the the Mesa libraries after uninstalling fglrx? I found that I needed
    > to re-install the libgl1-mesa-glx package (Debian/testing, package name
    > will vary by distro) in order for the open source driver to function
    > properly. This glitch may have been Debian-specific or a result of
    > something I did wrong, but it still might be worth a try on your system.


    Actually both drivers are installed. I'm selecting the driver I'm using
    in XFdrake. This was not identified as an issue in the Mandriva forum
    when we were thrashing it out a few months ago.

    --
    Mark E. Adams, 2004 -- drop the "dot" to email me.
    http://adamslan.shyper.com -*- Mandriva User# 263042

    CONSIDER: ===========---------,,,,,,,,,............. . . . . .
    The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a number
    or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  18. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    Stefan Patric wrote:
    > On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:09:41 -0600, Mark Adams wrote:
    >
    >> Stefan Patric wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:01:44 -0600, Mark Adams wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Greetings.
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm looking for advice/recommendations on a new mobo and other parts.
    >>>> My current desktop is an Intel WN845D, 2.6 GHz P4, 1 GB of RAM, AGP4
    >>>> slot. I'm running Mandriva 2007 and I just don't have enough horsepower
    >>>> to run the Beryl desktop.
    >>> Sure you have enough horsepower. 2.6 GHz P4? Plenty of power. What you
    >>> need is more RAM. I have friends running 3D desktops on 32-bit notebooks
    >>> in the 1.6 to 2.0 GHz range, and all run smoothly.
    >>>

    >> I may have not been clear about this point -- I can run the 3D eyecandy,
    >> but it's too slow to be useful. Oh! but I can't get some of the choicer
    >> effects, like water.
    >>
    >>>> As is when I open a new Firefox window, the CPU load jumps to 100% and
    >>>> cruises there for several seconds while the window opens. If I've got
    >>>> two or three torrents downloading and some other process running in the
    >>>> background, I may wait 20 or 30 seconds for the window to open. I
    >>>> initially thought this might be because my ATI Radeon 9250 was bogging
    >>>> down, but that wouldn't account for the high CPU load.
    >>> Extra RAM will help. Check your swap. If it's getting hit hard or is
    >>> nearly full, then not enough RAM is the problem.
    >>>

    >> Swap isn't taking much of a hit at all. Gkrellm says it's 743M free of
    >> 996M. Pumping Azureus full of downloads will bump that up to something
    >> more like 50%, but I've never seen it higher.
    >>
    >>> Also, check the driver for that Radeon card. Is it the one that is
    >>> specifically for that card and enables the 3D rendering or just a
    >>> "generic" one?

    >> It's the OS fglrx driver. I think it may be the generic OS Radeon
    >> driver. It allows 3D direct rendering with AIGLX.

    >
    > You should get the dedicated ATI driver. It will improve graphic
    > performance tremendously. My 64-bit AMD system uses a Geforce 6600 PCI-X
    > card and with the Fedora Core 6 generic 'nv' driver, I only get between
    > 100 and 150 fps on glxgears, full screen. With the 'nvidia' driver from
    > livna, I'll expect 8 to 10 times faster frame rates. (I haven't bothered
    > installing the native nVidia driver, since it was a low priority as far as
    > upgrading the system.)
    >
    >


    Umm, "dedicated ATI driver"? Do you mean ATI's proprietary driver? If
    so, I can't get direct rendering under ATI's driver.

    >>>> At any rate, time to upgrade. I am shooting for something like this:
    >>>>
    >>>> Intel Core 2 Duo at about 2.3 GHz
    >>>> 2 GB RAM
    >>>> Nvidia PCI express graphics
    >>>> Gigabyte ethernet
    >>>> Two SATA hard drives
    >>>> A DVD writer (SATA?)
    >>>> The usual handful of USB, serial, parallel ports,
    >>>> Firewire ports for my video camera (PCI card is okay here)
    >>>> And a powersupply that will put up a reliable, honest 500 Watts.
    >>>> Oh and a snazzy black, half-tower case that isn't made of some exotic
    >>>> material like aluminum and doesn't have windows and lights in it.
    >>> Looks good. I'd suggest considering MBs only with an nVidia chipset,
    >>> since nVidia has native Linux drivers.

    >> How about Intel boards. I'm looking hard at something like the DG965WH.
    >> The DG965 series come with something like the GMA X3000 onboard
    >> graphics. Beyond onboards, I'm looking at buying an Nvidia PCIE card.

    >
    > I'm not up on Intel boards. In fact, I avoid them. Have read a lot about
    > incompatibility issues with them and Linux -- mainly Intel chipsets,
    > onboard graphics and ethernet chips -- especially since the Microsoft and
    > Intel collaboration to develop hardware that's "Vista Ready." I'm sure
    > this will change after the Linux community has time to write drivers,
    > etc.
    >
    >>>> I know I want the Core 2 Duo, but I have no idea what mobo to build this
    >>>> around. Anybody have any suggestions about any of this?
    >>> Go here and plug in your requirements: http://www.motherboards.org/mobot/
    >>> It'll spit out all the boards that satisfy them.

    >> I can't get anything on core 2 duo boards. 8-\

    >
    > MOBOT is a VERY picky database. For example, if you specify solely a Core
    > 2 Duo CPU motherboard, there might not be any that take ONLY that chip,
    > but there may be a lot that take BOTH Core Duo AND Core 2 Duo CPUs, which
    > MOBOT considers not to be the same motherboard as ones that ONLY takes the
    > Core 2.
    >
    > Start simple: enter only the socket type of the CPU you want; then, if
    > you get anything, search again, but with the form factor or chip set or
    > memory type or manufacturer, and so forth, one requirement at a time in
    > order of importance. If you enter too many requirements to begin with,
    > there may not be any motherboards that fulfills all those requirements,
    > and you'll get nothing.
    >
    > Stef


    I finally got a decent query looking for CPU "Core 2 Extreme, Core 2
    Duo, Pentium 4, Pentium D". I don't see anything there that really
    floats my boat, but then there's quite a bit to sort through.

    If I go this route, I'm thinking pick out a few boards that I think look
    good and then see what kind of deal I can wangle on a combo deal through
    Pricewatch.

    At this point, I'm not sure what to do. The easy but kind of risky
    thing to do is upgrade. The cost-effective but riskier thing to do is
    sort it out and replace the video card.

    --
    Mark E. Adams, 2004 -- drop the "dot" to email me.
    http://adamslan.shyper.com -*- Mandriva User# 263042

    CONSIDER: ===========---------,,,,,,,,,............. . . . . .
    Even if you can deceive people about a product through misleading
    statements,sooner or later the product will speak for itself.
    - Hajime Karatsu

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  19. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    Anton Ertl wrote:
    > Stefan Patric writes:
    >> You should get the dedicated ATI driver.

    >
    > I assume you mean ATI's proprietary driver "fglrx".
    >


    I am assuming the same thing here. I've got that driver. No direct
    rendering at all with it.

    >> It will improve graphic
    >> performance tremendously. My 64-bit AMD system uses a Geforce 6600 PCI-X
    >> card and with the Fedora Core 6 generic 'nv' driver, I only get between
    >> 100 and 150 fps on glxgears, full screen.

    >
    > Depending on your screen resolution, that's not bad. However, it's
    > customary to report glxgears numbers for the default size, and they
    > are more comparable then.
    >


    I'm running 1280 x 1024 at 60Hz if that means anything to anybody.

    > Anyway, the nv driver does not support hardware 3D accelaration,
    > thanks to Nvidia not providing the necessary programming information.


    Wait, does this mean that anyone running an Nvidia card under Linux
    isn't going to have 3d acceleration at all?

    > In contrast, the radeon driver the OP is using does support hardware
    > 3D acceleration on all Radeons up to the R400 series (i.e., anything
    > below Radeon x1000), thanks to ATI providing the programming
    > infomation for the R100 and R200 series; the OP has an R200-based
    > card, so he should get 3D acceleration, but apparently doesn't.


    And can't seem to figure out why not.

    >
    >> With the 'nvidia' driver from
    >> livna, I'll expect 8 to 10 times faster frame rates.

    >
    > Yes, hardware acceleration will do that for you. But the speed
    > difference between radeon and fglrx is much less: From
    > <2005Jan13.200644@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>:
    >
    > Driver fps
    > fglrx (proprietary): 1572 fps
    > radeon Xfree86-4.3: 1448 fps
    > radeon X.org-6.8.1: 1526 fps
    >
    >> I'm not up on Intel boards. In fact, I avoid them. Have read a lot about
    >> incompatibility issues with them and Linux -- mainly Intel chipsets,
    >> onboard graphics and ethernet chips -- especially since the Microsoft and
    >> Intel collaboration to develop hardware that's "Vista Ready." I'm sure
    >> this will change after the Linux community has time to write drivers,
    >> etc.

    >
    > You don't know what you are talking about. Intel has very good Linux
    > support, including supplying programming information and free drivers
    > for the graphics chips (they are pretty much the only game in town in
    > that respect) and better Linux support for their wireless chips than
    > most other manufacturers. Their Ethernet chips give very good
    > performance under Linux and have been very reliable in my experience.
    >
    > I don't have experience with Intel boards, but they have a good
    > reputation.


    I am using an Intel D845WN and have been very happy with it to date. It
    runs well, it's stable, mbmon reports data as expected, sound is
    adequate, etc. I've had no trouble with the motherboard itself, but
    it's older technology, P4 only, AGP 4, and no PCI-Express.

    Show of hands -- who thinks I should really just upgrade?

    --
    Mark E. Adams, 2004 -- drop the "dot" to email me.
    http://adamslan.shyper.com -*- Mandriva User# 263042

    CONSIDER: ===========---------,,,,,,,,,............. . . . . .
    If I can have honesty, it's easier to overlook mistakes.
    -- Kirk, "Space Seed", stardate 3141.9

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  20. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    Mark Adams wrote:
    > John-Paul Stewart wrote:
    >> Mark Adams wrote:
    >>> John-Paul Stewart wrote:
    >>>> Mark Adams wrote:
    >>>>> # glxgears
    >>>>> libGL warning: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x4b
    >>>>> 1046 frames in 5.0 seconds = 209.169 FPS
    >>>>> 1068 frames in 5.0 seconds = 213.451 FPS
    >>>>> 1069 frames in 5.0 seconds = 213.653 FPS
    >>>>> 1062 frames in 5.0 seconds = 212.399 FPS
    >>>>> qq1755 frames in 5.0 seconds = 350.905 FPS
    >>>> Those numbers don't look right. You should be seeing around 10x
    >>>> those numbers, given the description of your hardware. (Have a look
    >>>> at http://www.free3d.org/ for results from other users of similar
    >>>> hardware with the open source drivers.)
    >>>>
    >>>> Something is wrong with your configuration, but I have no idea what
    >>>> it might be. Everything else you've posted in this thread (except
    >>>> for the benchmark numbers) looks fine, AFAICT.
    >>> I'll have another go at free3d.org, but I was over this and over it on
    >>> the ClubMandriva support forums and the developers there wound up
    >>> pointing fingers at the ATI driver; the open source driver is a better
    >>> hack than the proprietary driver, but it's still not good enough to
    >>> work the hardware properly.

    >> So you've tried the closed-source fglrx driver and have now gone back to
    >> using the open source driver, right? In that case, did you re-install
    >> the the Mesa libraries after uninstalling fglrx? I found that I needed
    >> to re-install the libgl1-mesa-glx package (Debian/testing, package name
    >> will vary by distro) in order for the open source driver to function
    >> properly. This glitch may have been Debian-specific or a result of
    >> something I did wrong, but it still might be worth a try on your system.

    >
    > Actually both drivers are installed. I'm selecting the driver I'm using
    > in XFdrake.


    Then I would definitely try totally uninstalling the ATI driver
    package(s), and possibly re-installing the Mesa libs. It's a heck of a
    lot cheaper than upgrading your hardware....

    (And in light of your comments elsewhere in this thread about it working
    a lot better under Ubuntu, it's quite clear that there's a configuration
    problem with Mandriva.)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast