why are gnome 3 animations sometimes slow?

spiritwalker · 2011-06-17 23:04:12

Hi all,

The title says it all. My laptop has an integrated Intel HD 3000 graphics. I have installed mesa, mesa-demos, xf86-video-intel, and intel-dri. kernel version is 2.6.39. and the system is a 64-bit one.
Are the animations slow because this graphics card is not good enough?

here is a screencast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHmN_yawB2M
Screencast came out better than what it really is.

Last edited by spiritwalker (2011-06-17 23:04:36)

Calibanio · 2011-06-17 23:19:00

Yes that appears to be a result of your graphics card not being capable of rendering enough frames per second in order for animations to appear smothly.

spiritwalker · 2011-06-17 23:52:55

does gnome 3 allow me to use lower settings so that the animations run smoothly?

Viper_Scull · 2011-06-18 19:55:43

Calibanio wrote:

Yes that appears to be a result of your graphics card not being capable of rendering enough frames per second in order for animations to appear smothly.

Not quite so.

Intel HD3000 performs better (speaking of hardware capabilities) than my embedded ATI HD4200, and with this one everything goes smoothly in my system.

I'd say the problem might be the relationship between gnome 3 (mutter) and intel drivers. My brother has the same gpu and the Applications menu takes quite long to appear once pushed.
ATI FOSS + Compiz = No problemo.

He'd rather use the nvidia pci card, but the shitty bios does not have the option to select the gpu. And the kernel selects the hd3000. Bumblebee is no mature yet, so he has to stick to intel graphics.

Last edited by Viper_Scull (2011-06-18 19:59:42)

bwat47 · 2011-06-18 21:05:39

Viper_Scull wrote:

Calibanio wrote:
Yes that appears to be a result of your graphics card not being capable of rendering enough frames per second in order for animations to appear smothly.
Not quite so.
Intel HD3000 performs better (speaking of hardware capabilities) than my embedded ATI HD4200, and with this one everything goes smoothly in my system.
I'd say the problem might be the relationship between gnome 3 (mutter) and intel drivers. My brother has the same gpu and the Applications menu takes quite long to appear once pushed.
ATI FOSS + Compiz = No problemo.
He'd rather use the nvidia pci card, but the shitty bios does not have the option to select the gpu. And the kernel selects the hd3000. Bumblebee is no mature yet, so he has to stick to intel graphics.

I have intel graphics (intel ironlake). Gnome 3 runs flawlessly on it. Even better than my old dedicated mobility hd2600. HD3000 is the newer sandy bridge graphics right? If its performing that bad there is something wrong.

Last edited by bwat47 (2011-06-18 21:08:13)

Calibanio · 2011-06-18 22:08:40

Viper_Scull wrote:

Calibanio wrote:
Yes that appears to be a result of your graphics card not being capable of rendering enough frames per second in order for animations to appear smothly.
Not quite so.
Intel HD3000 performs better (speaking of hardware capabilities) than my embedded ATI HD4200, and with this one everything goes smoothly in my system.
I'd say the problem might be the relationship between gnome 3 (mutter) and intel drivers. My brother has the same gpu and the Applications menu takes quite long to appear once pushed.
ATI FOSS + Compiz = No problemo.
He'd rather use the nvidia pci card, but the shitty bios does not have the option to select the gpu. And the kernel selects the hd3000. Bumblebee is no mature yet, so he has to stick to intel graphics.

I was just trying to point out that the issue seem to be related to his graphics card. If the drivers are bad then the graphics card is incapable of working at its full rate. It may very well be a driver related issue, in fact it's very likely, but even so it doesn't make my statement wrong.

defears · 2011-06-18 22:26:47

http://www.fedoraforum.org/forum/showth … p?t=263226

I set the times for .001 and it's a lot better.

spiritwalker · 2011-06-22 00:41:56

thanks for your replies, everybody.
defears, I tried that but I didn't see any difference.
I also found this link: http://blogs.intel.com/technology/2011/ … t_will.php

alexcriss · 2011-06-22 08:41:59

Sandy Bridge and Gnome 3 don't play together very well *for now* due to 'incomplete' drivers. Particularly, as answered on the Gnome Shell mailing list - see http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-sh … 00029.html, the drivers for HD 3000 are a work in progress and should become better in the future.

In the meantime, as suggested in https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=118441&p=2, the boot parameter i915.semaphores=1 helps me to reduce the pain!

Cheers,
Alessandro

spiritwalker · 2011-06-22 14:41:40

Allessandro, this works great. Thanks!

Arch Linux

#1 2011-06-17 23:04:12

why are gnome 3 animations sometimes slow?

#2 2011-06-17 23:19:00

Re: why are gnome 3 animations sometimes slow?

#3 2011-06-17 23:52:55

Re: why are gnome 3 animations sometimes slow?

#4 2011-06-18 19:55:43

Re: why are gnome 3 animations sometimes slow?

#5 2011-06-18 21:05:39

Re: why are gnome 3 animations sometimes slow?

#6 2011-06-18 22:08:40

Re: why are gnome 3 animations sometimes slow?

#7 2011-06-18 22:26:47

Re: why are gnome 3 animations sometimes slow?

#8 2011-06-22 00:41:56

Re: why are gnome 3 animations sometimes slow?

#9 2011-06-22 08:41:59

Re: why are gnome 3 animations sometimes slow?

#10 2011-06-22 14:41:40

Re: why are gnome 3 animations sometimes slow?

Board footer