Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

sp219 · 2009-02-15 19:20:34

I'm running Arch on an old Dell Laptop (Inspiron B130, to be exact)

Includes a 1.5 GHz single-core Celeron, 1 GB RAM, and Intel Integrated 915 graphics.

What would be the recommended configuration for optimal performance? Right now, I'm using the intel driver and the Xfce desktop environment. Some sites in Firefox (such as Facebook) seem to scroll rather slowly.

Is there anything I can do to get things running a little smoother? (Would the i810 driver provide better performance, or anything else for that matter?)

Thanks in advance.

* Edit: glxgears seems to be getting poor FPS:

[sp219@lap ~]$ glxgears
Xlib:  extension "Generic Event Extension" missing on display ":0.0".
Xlib:  extension "Generic Event Extension" missing on display ":0.0".
2206 frames in 5.0 seconds = 441.136 FPS
2214 frames in 5.0 seconds = 442.613 FPS
2242 frames in 5.0 seconds = 448.335 FPS
2202 frames in 5.0 seconds = 440.333 FPS

[sp219@lap ~]$ glxinfo | grep direct
Xlib:  extension "Generic Event Extension" missing on display ":0.0".
Xlib:  extension "Generic Event Extension" missing on display ":0.0".
direct rendering: Yes

Last edited by sp219 (2009-02-15 19:23:03)

mutlu_inek · 2009-02-15 19:46:25

Post your xorg.conf

sp219 · 2009-02-15 19:48:06

xorg.conf:

Section "ServerLayout"
    Identifier     "x"
    Screen      0  "Screen0" 0 0
    InputDevice    "Synaptics Touchpad" "AlwaysCore"
    InputDevice    "Keyboard0" "CoreKeyboard"
EndSection

Section "Files"
    ModulePath   "/usr/lib/xorg/modules"
    FontPath     "/usr/share/fonts/misc"
    FontPath     "/usr/share/fonts/100dpi:unscaled"
    FontPath     "/usr/share/fonts/75dpi:unscaled"
    FontPath     "/usr/share/fonts/TTF"
    FontPath     "/usr/share/fonts/Type1"
EndSection

Section "Module"
    Load  "xtrap"
    Load  "dri"
    Load  "extmod"
    Load  "dbe"
    Load  "glx"
    Load  "freetype"
    Load  "synaptics"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
    Identifier  "Keyboard0"
    Driver      "kbd"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
  Driver      "synaptics"
  Identifier  "Synaptics Touchpad"
  Option      "Protocol"     "auto-dev"
  Option      "SHMConfig"    "on"
EndSection
Section "Monitor"
    Identifier   "Monitor0"
    VendorName   "AUO"
    ModelName    "2174"
EndSection

Section "Device"
    Identifier  "Card0"
    Driver      "intel"
    VendorName  "Intel Corporation"
    BoardName   "Mobile 915GM/GMS/910GML Express Graphics Controller"
    BusID       "PCI:0:2:0"
EndSection

Section "Screen"
    Identifier "Screen0"
    Device     "Card0"
    Monitor    "Monitor0"
    SubSection "Display"
        Viewport   0 0
        Depth     1
    EndSubSection
    SubSection "Display"
        Viewport   0 0
        Depth     4
    EndSubSection
    SubSection "Display"
        Viewport   0 0
        Depth     8
    EndSubSection
    SubSection "Display"
        Viewport   0 0
        Depth     15
    EndSubSection
    SubSection "Display"
        Viewport   0 0
        Depth     16
    EndSubSection
    SubSection "Display"
        Viewport   0 0
        Depth     24
    EndSubSection
EndSection

Section "ServerFlags"
    Option "AutoAddDevices" "False"
EndSection

sp219 · 2009-02-15 23:33:26

Any ideas? It almost seems like the window borders "come up" slower than the windows themselves... that doesn't seem right.

mutlu_inek · 2009-02-16 02:49:05

Try adding

        Option      "DRI"         "true"
        Option      "AccelMethod"            "XAA"
        Option      "XAANoOffscreenPixmaps"  "True"
        Option      "XaaNoPixmapCache"

to your section "device."

And, if you want compositing, this as sections of their own:

Section "DRI"
        Mode 0666
EndSection

Section "Extensions"
        Option "Composite" "Enable"
        Option "MIT-SHM"   "Yes"
EndSection

sp219 · 2009-02-16 03:03:50

I tried adding that, but I'm still noticing poor performance. Also... I'm only getting around 400 fps in glxgears:

2318 frames in 5.0 seconds = 463.416 FPS

Whereas with a previous Ubuntu install on the same machine, I was getting ~1000 fps with glxgears:

5131 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1026.067 FPS
5296 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1059.067 FPS
5185 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1036.836 FPS

wsduvall · 2009-02-16 03:58:02

Do u know what version of Xorg that install of Ubuntu was using?

sp219 · 2009-02-16 05:11:49

wsduvall wrote:

Do u know what version of Xorg that install of Ubuntu was using?

All I know is that it was probably older, around the time Ubuntu 7.04 was out.

Bogart · 2009-02-16 11:06:33

Strange that you notice poor performance with XAA too. With that there shouldn't be much difference with older releases (except in glxgears, but that's not a good benchmark anyway. Maybe gtkperf can give a better idea of real performance).

biagio · 2009-02-16 11:20:58

sp219,
try putting in your .bashrc:

export INTEL_BATCH=1

and create the file ~/.drirc:

<driconf>
  <device screen="0" driver="i915">
    <application name="Default">
      <option name="vblank_mode" value="0" />
    </application>
  </device>
</driconf>

This should improve performance.

Edit:
With the option XAA, I can not use the webcam. Instead with EXA or UXA works (With UXA works well).

Last edited by biagio (2009-02-16 11:26:38)

fijam · 2009-02-16 12:00:57

Some reference on INTEL_BATCH: https://bugs.launchpad.net/xserver-xorg … comments/7

And mind you that disabling blanking on vertical sync may cause tearing in some cases.

dcrabs · 2009-02-16 14:56:47

It is funny that you have ~400fps at all with your card. I'm seeing here around ~80fps on a 965GM with intel driver. I'm using KDE4.2 and noticed that all gtk+ apps show a sluggish behaviour.
The bottom line I learned so far was that we have to wait for a new xorg-server and intel (2.6) driver.

wsduvall · 2009-02-16 15:17:30

First off, there are a lot of issues with the new version of Xorg and the Intel driver and the kernel. I think the new version of Xorg and the kernel support GEM, but the new Intel driver isn't out yet or something along these lines (anybody know what the actual story is?). Regardless, you can expect poor performance on all Intel cards. I had hoped this issue would be fixed by now...

mutlu_inek · 2009-02-16 21:25:28

sp219 wrote:

I tried adding that, but I'm still noticing poor performance. Also... I'm only getting around 400 fps in glxgears: [...]
Whereas with a previous Ubuntu install on the same machine, I was getting ~1000 fps with glxgears: [...]

Same for me on a Intel GMA 950. I used to have better results with the i810 driver, about 1000 fps as well. The move to xf86-video-intel-2.4.x and xorg-server-1.5.x caused a loss of ca. 40% fps for me, I get around 600. The performance is luckily still enough for smooth desktop effects with KDE.

I am testing newer kernels, mesa, X and intel drivers quite regularly and have noticed quite some forth and back. XAA has disappeared, leaving EXA and UXA. In my tests, UXA has always faster than EXA, but still not performant enough for desktop effects. My most recent test (yesterday, in fact,) showed EXA overtaking UXA, but only since the latter lost performance.

Overall I experienced consistently worse performance than with the combination Arch offers right now. I have never achieved over 300 fps in glxgears (yes, I know it is not a (proper) benchmark).

I think we will have to be patient for quite a bit longer.

Dead Code · 2009-02-17 01:04:58

I have Intel GMA 900, I have MigrationHeurisitic commented coz my sys tray was going invisible. I get ~450 fps on glxgears.. I hate these Intel cards

wsduvall · 2009-02-17 02:24:38

These is apparently a fix for that, see here: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=64412

Dead Code · 2009-02-17 03:36:53

So QT 4.5rc is the real fix for this? Not commenting MigrationHeuristic?

wsduvall · 2009-02-17 03:52:50

I'm still trying to get distcc working on my cluster so that I can build the package without it taking forever. It always fails building qt. But apparently... You have to update the patch and such. Also, for use KDEmodders, I think they use the normal arch QT package, so you should be fine using the one form ABS.

Last edited by wsduvall (2009-02-17 04:35:10)

sp219 · 2009-02-20 22:58:50

mutlu_inek wrote:

sp219 wrote:
I tried adding that, but I'm still noticing poor performance. Also... I'm only getting around 400 fps in glxgears: [...]
Whereas with a previous Ubuntu install on the same machine, I was getting ~1000 fps with glxgears: [...]
Same for me on a Intel GMA 950. I used to have better results with the i810 driver, about 1000 fps as well. The move to xf86-video-intel-2.4.x and xorg-server-1.5.x caused a loss of ca. 40% fps for me, I get around 600. The performance is luckily still enough for smooth desktop effects with KDE.
I am testing newer kernels, mesa, X and intel drivers quite regularly and have noticed quite some forth and back. XAA has disappeared, leaving EXA and UXA. In my tests, UXA has always faster than EXA, but still not performant enough for desktop effects. My most recent test (yesterday, in fact,) showed EXA overtaking UXA, but only since the latter lost performance.
Overall I experienced consistently worse performance than with the combination Arch offers right now. I have never achieved over 300 fps in glxgears (yes, I know it is not a (proper) benchmark).
I think we will have to be patient for quite a bit longer.

So what have you settled on now? the i810 driver with exa?

stefanwilkens · 2009-02-21 11:36:18

we're going through a transitional phase where complete support for GEM needs to be implemented and xorg / mesa needs to be adapted accordingly.

The best bet at regaining the old performance is waiting for xorg-server 1.6 (comes with X.org 7.5) / new mesa / 2.6.29 kernel / intel driver 2.6 to be released and find their way through arch [testing]. I believe the new kernel is set to be released in april, I'm not sure on the others.

You could downgrade to X.org 7.3 / intel 2.2) to get the same performace ubuntu 8.04 would have. I believe 8.10 is also suffering low performance in intel cards for this same exact reason, it uses X.org 7.4 / intel 2.4.

*edit*

bleeding edge information can be found here:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=61650

Last edited by stefanwilkens (2009-02-21 11:47:27)

sp219 · 2009-02-21 18:03:51

stefanwilkens wrote:

we're going through a transitional phase where complete support for GEM needs to be implemented and xorg / mesa needs to be adapted accordingly.
The best bet at regaining the old performance is waiting for xorg-server 1.6 (comes with X.org 7.5) / new mesa / 2.6.29 kernel / intel driver 2.6 to be released and find their way through arch [testing]. I believe the new kernel is set to be released in april, I'm not sure on the others.
You could downgrade to X.org 7.3 / intel 2.2) to get the same performace ubuntu 8.04 would have. I believe 8.10 is also suffering low performance in intel cards for this same exact reason, it uses X.org 7.4 / intel 2.4.
*edit*
bleeding edge information can be found here:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=61650

Thanks a bunch for the info, I really appreciate it!

mutlu_inek · 2009-02-22 02:11:38

sp219 wrote:

So what have you settled on now? the i810 driver with exa?

That would be the fastest solution, but I made the move to intel as well since all Xorg has moved to libpciaccess about a year ago and i810 was never ported. To use it, all the X stuff needs to be downgraded which may become a problem in the long run. I simply decided against it since, luckily, in my case, the intel driver is just fast enough to make desktop effects bearable.

Ronin-Sage · 2009-02-22 07:46:22

April? Man, that's a terribly long time ><

Cosmin · 2009-02-22 16:12:58

Ronin-Sage wrote:

April? Man, that's a terribly long time ><

agreed, I have an intel video card on the laptop

mutlu_inek · 2009-02-22 22:44:23

Honestly, I think April is optimistic. There is a disagreement in the developer community about whether old optimizations should be reintroduced into the new stack to have short-term gains (i.e. speed as we know it) or whether the new stack should be implemented cleanly and in its ideal form and then a wholly new set of optimizations developed. While the latter is ideally the better way, it would mean that it will take _much_ longer to get what we were used to (plus the new features, of course). In both cases, though, I don't expect 1000 fps by April. I wouldn't mind being wrong, though.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-02-15 19:20:34

Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#2 2009-02-15 19:46:25

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#3 2009-02-15 19:48:06

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#4 2009-02-15 23:33:26

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#5 2009-02-16 02:49:05

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#6 2009-02-16 03:03:50

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#7 2009-02-16 03:58:02

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#8 2009-02-16 05:11:49

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#9 2009-02-16 11:06:33

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#10 2009-02-16 11:20:58

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#11 2009-02-16 12:00:57

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#12 2009-02-16 14:56:47

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#13 2009-02-16 15:17:30

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#14 2009-02-16 21:25:28

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#15 2009-02-17 01:04:58

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#16 2009-02-17 02:24:38

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#17 2009-02-17 03:36:53

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#18 2009-02-17 03:52:50

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#19 2009-02-20 22:58:50

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#20 2009-02-21 11:36:18

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#21 2009-02-21 18:03:51

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#22 2009-02-22 02:11:38

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#23 2009-02-22 07:46:22

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#24 2009-02-22 16:12:58

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

#25 2009-02-22 22:44:23

Re: Intel 915 Integrated Graphics - Recommended configuration?

Board footer