NVIDIA's AGP versus the kernel's AGPGART?

elasticdog · 2006-03-04 19:13:06

I've just taken the time to figure out how to use nvidia-agp instead of the kernel's agpgart, but it doesn't give any difference in performance (at least based on <code>glxgears</code> results). Is there any point to switching?

To get it to work, I had to blacklist <code>agpgart</code> in my rc.conf file, and then add this line to the device section of my xorg.conf file:

Option  "NvAgp"  "1"

which gives me what I was looking for:

$ cat /proc/driver/nvidia/agp/status
Status:          Enabled
Driver:          NVIDIA
AGP Rate:        8x
Fast Writes:     Disabled
SBA:             Enabled

Does anyone have any experience with these, or did I just waste my time? Either way I get just about 1700fps using glxgears with a GeForce 6200.

jaboua · 2006-03-04 21:43:53

Heh, I found myself wondering about the same thing a few weeks ago (if nvidia's give better performance) - I haven't done any benchmarchs on it though.

I would like to know too.

Infinite · 2006-03-22 22:00:13

I really would like to know too.

Although agpgart is in my MOD_BLACKLIST=(agpgart) , hwdetect still loads agpgart:

[root@archbox rob]# hwdetect --modules
MODULES=(cdrom agpgart intel-agp hw_random lp ppdev i2c-i801 i2c-core evdev gameport serio_raw parport parport_pc pci_hotplug shpchp nvidia snd-mixer-oss snd-pcm-oss snd-seq-oss snd-seq-device snd-seq-midi-event snd-seq snd-hwdep snd-page-alloc snd-pcm snd-rawmidi snd-timer snd snd-mpu401-uart snd-opl3-lib snd-cmipci soundcore ide-cd ide-core ide-disk generic piix sd_mod 3c59x mii usb-storage usblp usbhid usbcore ehci-hcd ohci-hcd uhci-hcd)

I also have Option "AGPFastWrite" enabled in xorg.conf but as you can see below, it does not work properly.

Section "Device"
    Identifier     "Geforce2 MX200/100"

    Option "RenderAccel"                 "true"
    Option "AllowGLXWithComposite"       "true"
    Option "NoDDC"                       "false"
    Option "NoLogo"                      "true"
    Option "nvAGP"                       "1"
    Option "AGPFastWrite"                "true"
    Option "DigitalVibrance"             "3"
    Option "Coolbits"                    "true"

# cat /proc/driver/nvidia/agp/status
Status:          Enabled
Driver:          NVIDIA
AGP Rate:        4x
Fast Writes: Disabled
SBA:             Disabled

Does someone know what's going on here? (My apoligies for taken advantage of this thread)

Another problem, I can't shutdown my system properly. When I give the command:

shutdown -h now

it will only go down "half way" > goes back to init 3 and it's saying: power down but the power is still on :? Very strange.

Neuro · 2006-03-22 22:12:34

As for FastWrites and SBA:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?p=151197

As for AGPGART vs nvAGP, I don't know. Anyone done any benchmarks?

Infinite · 2006-03-22 22:15:58

lmao ...

cat /proc/driver/nvidia/agp/card
Status: Enabled
Driver: NVIDIA
AGP Rate: 4x
Fast Writes: Not Supported
SBA: Not Supported

..

geekner · 2006-03-23 04:40:38

I used to use NvAGP, but switched to AGPGART because it supported my motherboard. I really havent noticed a difference. AGPGART works fine for me, I have an abit KV8-Max3 board with the via chipset.

$ cat /proc/driver/nvidia/agp/status
Status:          Enabled
Driver:          AGPGART
AGP Rate:        8x
Fast Writes:     Enabled
SBA:             Enabled
$ cat /proc/driver/nvidia/agp/card
Fast Writes:     Supported
SBA:             Supported
AGP Rates:       8x 4x
Registers:       0x1f000e1b:0x1f000312
$ cat /proc/driver/nvidia/cards/0
Model:           GeForce FX 5900XT
IRQ:             18
Video BIOS:      04.35.20.38.01
Card Type:       AGP

geekner · 2006-03-23 04:54:12

First test with agpgart, second test with nvidias agp. No real difference from what I can see, I restarted between tests and everything was exactly the same with the exception of agpgart/nvagp.

$ glxgears
31685 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6336.991 FPS
31679 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6335.627 FPS
31668 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6333.559 FPS
31626 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6325.103 FPS
31643 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6328.547 FPS
31643 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6328.472 FPS


$ glxgears
31672 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6334.331 FPS
31637 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6327.369 FPS
31223 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6244.595 FPS
31620 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6323.819 FPS
31629 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6325.710 FPS
31635 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6326.889 FPS
31613 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6322.590 FPS

tyme · 2006-03-23 05:05:47

geekner wrote:

I used to use NvAGP, but switched to AGPGART because it supported my motherboard. I really havent noticed a difference. AGPGART works fine for me, I have an abit KV8-Max3 board with the via chipset.

I'm using an ECS L7S7A2 mobo (SiS chipset) with the agpgart, and have no issues and all options working (I have Fast Writes off purposely):

[mark@einsiedler ~]$ cat /proc/driver/nvidia/agp/status
Status:          Enabled
Driver:          AGPGART
AGP Rate:        8x
Fast Writes:     Disabled
SBA:             Enabled
[mark@einsiedler ~]$ cat /proc/driver/nvidia/agp/card
Fast Writes:     Supported
SBA:             Supported
AGP Rates:       8x 4x
Registers:       0xff000e1b:0x1f004302
[mark@einsiedler ~]$ cat /proc/driver/nvidia/cards/0
Model:           GeForce 6600 GT
IRQ:             21
Video BIOS:      05.43.02.27.01
Card Type:       AGP

Also, NvAGP only supports certain chipsets. See Appendix F of the README. If you're chipset isn't listed, you shouldn't be trying to use it - stick with AGPGART.

iBertus · 2006-03-23 06:04:03

I'm using the agpgart and just haven't tried nvidia's driver. Maybe I should give it a shot.

Neuro · 2006-03-23 06:36:22

geekner wrote:

First test with agpgart, second test with nvidias agp. No real difference from what I can see, I restarted between tests and everything was exactly the same with the exception of agpgart/nvagp.

Well, it doesn't really matter what you're running. As long as everything is stable.

kozaki · 2006-03-24 14:23:04

Does somebody knows if those settings are suitable at any point for a nVidia pci-express graphic card ?

Here are some output I get with a GeForce 6200TC PCIe.

$ lsmod | grep agp
amd64_agp 11140 1
agpgart 31368 2 nvidia,amd64_agp

$ ls /proc/driver/nvidia/
cards/ registry version warnings/

$ cat /proc/driver/nvidia/cards/0
Model:    GeForce 6200 TurboCache(TM)
IRQ:       10
Video BIOS:    05.44.02.11.00
Card Type:    PCI-E

$ cat /proc/driver/nvidia/registry
VideoMemoryTypeOverride: 1
EnableVia4x: 0
EnableALiAGP: 0
NvAGP: 3
ReqAGPRate: 15
EnableAGPSBA: 0
EnableAGPFW: 0
SoftEDIDs: 1
Mobile: 4294967295
ResmanDebugLevel: 4294967295
FlatPanelMode: 0
DevicesConnected: 0
VideoEnhancement: 0
RmLogonRC: 1
VbiosFromROM: 0
ModifyDeviceFiles: 1
DeviceFileUID: 0
DeviceFileGID: 0
DeviceFileMode: 438
RemapLimit: 0
UseCPA: 4294967295
DetectPrimaryVga: 0

/etc/X11/xorg.conf :

Section "Screen"
Identifier "NV Monitor"
Device "NV 6200TC"
Monitor "ViewSonic E92f+"
Option "DPMS"
Option "NoDDC" "false"
Option "NoLogo" "true"
#Option "Coolbits" "true" (WW) NVIDIA(0): Option "Coolbits" requires an integer value
#Option "UseEditDPI" "true" (WW) NVIDIA(0): Option "UseEditDPI" is not used
#Option "UseEditFreqs" "true" (WW) NVIDIA(0): Option "UseEditFreqs" is not used
Option "NvAGP" "1"
Option "UseEdidFreqs" "1"
#Option "EnablePageFlip" "true" (WW) NVIDIA(0): Option "EnablePageFlip" is not used
Option "NoBandWidthTest" "1"
Option "DigitalVibrance" "3"
Option "RenderAccel" "true"
Option "backingstore" "true"
#should be switched off *if* the system crash:
Option "RenderAccel" "true"
Option "AllowGLXWithComposite" "true"

FoPref · 2006-03-27 02:14:02

For some stuff like software suspend it is important. With software suspend, you need to disable AGPGART.

russianpirate · 2006-06-24 15:43:48

i can't get nvagp to work
i disabled agpgart completely in my kernel, recompiled nvidia driver so i know there is not agpgart in memory

however, now my agp status is always disabled .. i tried everything.. my drivers are 8762, anyone know how to fix this?

thanks a lot

FoPref · 2006-06-24 19:56:16

You need agpgart, even if you use NvAgp. The nvidia module must be able to load agpgart itself.

russianpirate · 2006-06-25 01:22:22

even then it still didnt work

Arch Linux

#1 2006-03-04 19:13:06

NVIDIA's AGP versus the kernel's AGPGART?

#2 2006-03-04 21:43:53

Re: NVIDIA's AGP versus the kernel's AGPGART?

#3 2006-03-22 22:00:13

Re: NVIDIA's AGP versus the kernel's AGPGART?

#4 2006-03-22 22:12:34

Re: NVIDIA's AGP versus the kernel's AGPGART?

#5 2006-03-22 22:15:58

Re: NVIDIA's AGP versus the kernel's AGPGART?

#6 2006-03-23 04:40:38

Re: NVIDIA's AGP versus the kernel's AGPGART?

#7 2006-03-23 04:54:12

Re: NVIDIA's AGP versus the kernel's AGPGART?

#8 2006-03-23 05:05:47

Re: NVIDIA's AGP versus the kernel's AGPGART?

#9 2006-03-23 06:04:03

Re: NVIDIA's AGP versus the kernel's AGPGART?

#10 2006-03-23 06:36:22

Re: NVIDIA's AGP versus the kernel's AGPGART?

#11 2006-03-24 14:23:04

Re: NVIDIA's AGP versus the kernel's AGPGART?

#12 2006-03-27 02:14:02

Re: NVIDIA's AGP versus the kernel's AGPGART?

#13 2006-06-24 15:43:48

Re: NVIDIA's AGP versus the kernel's AGPGART?

#14 2006-06-24 19:56:16

Re: NVIDIA's AGP versus the kernel's AGPGART?

#15 2006-06-25 01:22:22

Re: NVIDIA's AGP versus the kernel's AGPGART?

Board footer