[gma 965] EXA gives waaaay better performance than uxa

Dheart · 2009-05-20 15:08:37

Using AccelMethod EXA in xorg.conf, xf86-video-intel 2.7.1 gives way better performance. UT 2004 minimum fps has increased by 5-7FPS which makes the game fully playable (unlike in uxa mode). All other linux games have increased performance. Wine games RUN and much better. With uxa first run was fine but on the second run:

dri2: could not reference front buffer handle 0x000001: No such file or directory

Also it's much more stable. Wine games don't crash xserver. Resizing video multiple times also doesn't.
Question:
Am I the only one experiencing this? If not why are the devs removing exa/xaa/dri1 support? dri2/uxa are clearly not mature enough.

qubit · 2009-05-20 18:36:39

Question:
Am I the only one experiencing this? If not why are the devs removing exa/xaa/dri1 support? dri2/uxa are clearly not mature enough.

UXA/DRI2 is the bright future. UXA is for 2D and is able to use GEM and works with KMS. The increase in performance should be about 60% when all of this is ready.

Dheart · 2009-05-20 19:40:05

qubit wrote:

Question:
Am I the only one experiencing this? If not why are the devs removing exa/xaa/dri1 support? dri2/uxa are clearly not mature enough.
UXA/DRI2 is the bright future. UXA is for 2D and is able to use GEM and works with KMS. The increase in performance should be about 60% when all of this is ready.

Yes I know that. But it's clearly not ready yet. What's the point of forcing it? Kind of like microsoft...

eldragon · 2009-05-20 20:10:36

Dheart wrote:

qubit wrote:
Question:
Am I the only one experiencing this? If not why are the devs removing exa/xaa/dri1 support? dri2/uxa are clearly not mature enough.
UXA/DRI2 is the bright future. UXA is for 2D and is able to use GEM and works with KMS. The increase in performance should be about 60% when all of this is ready.
Yes I know that. But it's clearly not ready yet. What's the point of forcing it? Kind of like microsoft...

who's forcing it? its not even the default option (unless you are using KMS, which makes it the only option)

Dheart · 2009-05-20 22:14:55

eldragon wrote:

Dheart wrote:
qubit wrote:
UXA/DRI2 is the bright future. UXA is for 2D and is able to use GEM and works with KMS. The increase in performance should be about 60% when all of this is ready.
Yes I know that. But it's clearly not ready yet. What's the point of forcing it? Kind of like microsoft...
who's forcing it? its not even the default option (unless you are using KMS, which makes it the only option)

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=n … &px=NzIzNQ

eldragon · 2009-06-16 03:41:44

Dheart wrote:

eldragon wrote:
Dheart wrote:
Yes I know that. But it's clearly not ready yet. What's the point of forcing it? Kind of like microsoft...
who's forcing it? its not even the default option (unless you are using KMS, which makes it the only option)
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=n … &px=NzIzNQ

since exa/xaa was not going to be updated anymore, stripping it out of the driver seems like a bright idea. if you wish to use exa, you can ignore upgrades to the newer driver (which would include UXA updates only anyway) (this is what i did, until uxa works on par on this system).

im still testdriving the new stuff every time there is a relevant update. a couple of weeks ago i couldnt use kms withough having my system freeze after several minutes, now it does work correctly (for the most part), i would stay up to date if it wasnt for the resume bug that hasnt been fixed yet.

anyway, when i first asked about who was forcing it, this wasnt known, now it appears its being forced, yet there is a simple solution to the problem.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-05-20 15:08:37

[gma 965] EXA gives waaaay better performance than uxa

#2 2009-05-20 18:36:39

Re: [gma 965] EXA gives waaaay better performance than uxa

#3 2009-05-20 19:40:05

Re: [gma 965] EXA gives waaaay better performance than uxa

#4 2009-05-20 20:10:36

Re: [gma 965] EXA gives waaaay better performance than uxa

#5 2009-05-20 22:14:55

Re: [gma 965] EXA gives waaaay better performance than uxa

#6 2009-06-16 03:41:44

Re: [gma 965] EXA gives waaaay better performance than uxa

Board footer