Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

1LordAnubis · 2009-10-12 23:58:02

anubis@thor ~/ $ lspci | grep -i vga
00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/GMS, 943/940GML Express Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 03)

I'm using the intel 2.9 driver from aur, I've gotten rid of my xorg.conf, and I get this in glxgears:
anubis@thor ~/ $ glxgears
2942 frames in 5.0 seconds = 588.309 FPS
2972 frames in 5.0 seconds = 594.293 FPS
2958 frames in 5.0 seconds = 590.795 FPS
2942 frames in 5.0 seconds = 588.271 FPS
Fullscreen:
300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.854 FPS
300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.854 FPS
300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.847 FPS
on a 1024*768 display.
Although, in kde4.3 with composite enabled I take about a 33% glxgears performance hit.

Another interesting way of increasing intel gma performance is here: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=81429

Although, so far I only really notice an improvement in 3d apps such as blender.

I'm contemplating upgrading to mesa-git... is it stable?

combuster · 2009-10-13 06:19:29

Last time I've checked it was... But with git u never know, stability changes on a day to day basis ;-)

zuargo · 2009-10-15 04:27:54

b9anders wrote:

install yaourt and then type
yaourt -S intel-dri-git xf86-video-intel-git
should make the needed packages compile.

I try install them, but the xf86-video-intel-git package has as dependencies the intel-dri package and already I have installed the intel-dri-git package, then yaourt says this when I try install the first one:

==> xf86-video-intel-git dependencies:
 - intel-dri (package that provides intel-dri already installed)
 - libpciaccess (already installed)                             
 - libdrm (package that provides libdrm already installed)      
 - libxvmc (already installed)                                  
 - git (already installed)                                      
 - pkgconfig (already installed)                                
 - xorg-server (already installed)
 - xf86driproto (already installed)
 - glproto (package that provides glproto already installed)
 - mesa (package that provides mesa already installed)
 - xineramaproto (already installed)
 - xorg-util-macros (already installed)
==> Determining latest git revision...
  -> Version found: 20091015
==> Making package: xf86-video-intel-git 20091015-1 i686 (Thu Oct 15 01:09:39 CLST 2009)
==> Checking Runtime Dependencies...
==> Installing missing dependencies...
resolving dependencies...
looking for inter-conflicts...
:: intel-dri conflicts with intel-dri-git. Remove intel-dri-git? [Y/n] n
error: unresolvable package conflicts detected
error: failed to prepare transaction (conflicting dependencies)
:: intel-dri: conflicts with intel-dri-git
==> ERROR: Pacman failed to install missing dependencies.
Error: Makepkg was unable to build xf86-video-intel-git package.

If I want to install the xf86-video-intel-git package I must remove the intel-dri-git package, hence, I can't install both packages (intel-dri-git and xf86-video-intel-git) on the system.

Do you have installed both packages on your system?

If your answer is yes:

How did you do that?

Thanks in advance

EDIT

I guess this issue will happen with all packages installed from aur:

==> xf86-video-intel-git dependencies:
 - intel-dri (package that provides intel-dri already installed)
 - libpciaccess (already installed)                             
 - libdrm (package that provides libdrm already installed)      
 - libxvmc (already installed)                                  
 - git (already installed)                                      
 - pkgconfig (already installed)                                
 - xorg-server (already installed)
 - xf86driproto (already installed)
 - glproto (package that provides glproto already installed)
 - mesa (package that provides mesa already installed)
 - xineramaproto (already installed)
 - xorg-util-macros (already installed)

The packages: libdrm (libdrm-git), glproto (glproto-git) and mesa (mesa-git) were installed as intel-dri (intel-dri-git) package dependecies..

So, how can I solve this?

Thank so much

Last edited by zuargo (2009-10-15 04:51:45)

tinhtruong · 2009-10-15 10:27:25

Here is mine:

$ lspci | grep -i vga
00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/GMS, 943/940GML Express Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 03)
[tinh@tinh-laptop ~]$ glxgears 
1923 frames in 5.0 seconds = 384.540 FPS
1802 frames in 5.0 seconds = 360.308 FPS
2062 frames in 5.0 seconds = 411.940 FPS
2263 frames in 5.0 seconds = 452.525 FPS
2324 frames in 5.0 seconds = 464.657 FPS
2378 frames in 5.0 seconds = 475.430 FPS
2336 frames in 5.0 seconds = 467.130 FPS
2434 frames in 5.0 seconds = 486.611 FPS
2314 frames in 5.0 seconds = 462.772 FPS
2418 frames in 5.0 seconds = 483.579 FPS
2359 frames in 5.0 seconds = 471.666 FPS

I use xf86-video-intel-newest from AUR with kernel 2.6.31 and without xorg.conf file. I can now play Counter-Strike 1.6 with Wine. The key player here is the kernel version! just upgrade to 2.6.31 and you are fine (I think!)
PS: glxgears is not a good benchmark tool!

takedown · 2009-10-15 13:31:17

@tinhtruong: I can't start X without xorg.conf, I need a basic conf, like this:

 ~ # cat /etc/X11/xorg.conf
Section "Device"
        Identifier "GMA X4500MHD"
        Driver "intel"
EndSection

why?

PD: HAL is working

JGC · 2009-10-15 15:00:04

Please quit with these silly glxgears benchmarks. The FPS scores from glxgears are variable like the wind speed and direction. The only valid comparison is real-world OpenGL applications, like compositing managers or games. glxgears only tests one operation, and it's even a simple operation that isn't used in games or applications.

Dheart · 2009-10-15 17:44:41

Intel batch is enabled by default long time ago.
Try the newest drivers in aur, they offer permormance (almost) on par with the 2.7.0 branch.

Pyntux · 2009-10-15 18:19:29

Dheart wrote:

Intel batch is enabled by default long time ago.
Try the newest drivers in aur, they offer permormance (almost) on par with the 2.7.0 branch.

For me and my gpu, thats not thrue....a have same fps with -newest and driver from extra (by glxgears... yes,yes, it's not benchmark)!

Pyntux · 2009-10-15 18:22:24

JGC wrote:

Please quit with these silly glxgears benchmarks. The FPS scores from glxgears are variable like the wind speed and direction. The only valid comparison is real-world OpenGL applications, like compositing managers or games. glxgears only tests one operation, and it's even a simple operation that isn't used in games or applications.

OK, but when I have 250 fps with driver from extra (glxgears) and 600 fps with -stable driver from aur (same with glxgears) , em I mad or driver from aur has better performance?

Edit:

Just to add, I have same problem like zuargo....How to solve this?

Last edited by Pyntux (2009-10-15 18:28:49)

Dheart · 2009-10-15 20:29:33

The driver from AUR uses the old EXA which currently is performing better than the young and not very mature UXA, that's why.
For me the -newest is finaly useful. I could even play Frozen Throne (15 fps, though, but sufficient for some replays and even some ladder games), and most importantly no crashes with kwin4.
On some ancient version of MESA and xf86-video-intel 2.7.0 I got the best performacen but that was long time ago....

EDIT: But UT 2k4 which was playable on Deathmatch maps and maps without outdoors generally back then, now has rendering problems and even worse performance...

Last edited by Dheart (2009-10-15 20:32:56)

zuargo · 2009-10-16 01:25:19

Dheart wrote:

The driver from AUR uses the old EXA which currently is performing better than the young and not very mature UXA, that's why.

that mean the driver from extra repository xf86-video-intel uses UXA instead of EXA?

damn after to try install the intel-dri-git and xf86-video-intel-git packages (I could not do it finally) I cant enter in the xserver using my default user. Only I can enter in the xserver using the root user.

Dont try it...

Pyntux · 2009-10-16 02:07:47

zuargo, remove all -git stuff from local with -Rd than install stuff from extra and restart X and try to login with user acount.

uncholowapo · 2009-10-16 02:19:20

zuargo wrote:

Dheart wrote:
The driver from AUR uses the old EXA which currently is performing better than the young and not very mature UXA, that's why.
that mean the driver from extra repository xf86-video-intel uses UXA instead of EXA?
damn after to try install the intel-dri-git and xf86-video-intel-git packages (I could not do it finally) I cant enter in the xserver using my default user. Only I can enter in the xserver using the root user.
Dont try it...

I did it with no problem, I just had to modify a few things like version numbers. I wouldn't recommend it to new guys though. I don't get any preformance boost in World of Goo or in Armagetron Advanced. World of Goo might twitch a bit from the slower perfomance of UXA actually since it is a 2D game.

zuargo · 2009-10-16 02:56:16

Pyntux wrote:

zuargo, remove all -git stuff from local with -Rd than install stuff from extra and restart X and try to login with user acount.

I tried that but does not works

Anyway thanks a lot for the suggestion

uncholowapo wrote:

I did it with no problem, I just had to modify a few things like version numbers. I wouldn't recommend it to new guys though.

Perhaps you may do a guide about that

Last edited by zuargo (2009-10-16 02:58:51)

uncholowapo · 2009-10-16 03:19:27

zuargo wrote:

Pyntux wrote:
zuargo, remove all -git stuff from local with -Rd than install stuff from extra and restart X and try to login with user acount.
I tried that but does not works
Anyway thanks a lot for the suggestion
uncholowapo wrote:
I did it with no problem, I just had to modify a few things like version numbers. I wouldn't recommend it to new guys though.
Perhaps you may do a guide about that

Naw it's ok

zuargo · 2009-10-17 04:37:31

I solved my problem, see here: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=82499

quadomatic · 2009-10-25 19:44:47

I've been having interesting crashes for a while now with my GM965. Sometimes I'll be doing something, and the system will appear to stop responding for quite some time, but the mouse cursor will move.

Other times my computer will stop working, the mouse cursor will not move, and I'll have to wait a few moments and the system will become responsive again.

I found out that my system now needs a massive upgrade, so I'm letting pacman install w/e. Once that's done, I'm going to give intel-dri-git and xf86-intel-video-git a go. Does anyone think I should just go with xf86-intel-video-newest?

uncholowapo · 2009-10-25 19:56:12

quadomatic wrote:

I've been having interesting crashes for a while now with my GM965. Sometimes I'll be doing something, and the system will appear to stop responding for quite some time, but the mouse cursor will move.
Other times my computer will stop working, the mouse cursor will not move, and I'll have to wait a few moments and the system will become responsive again.
I found out that my system now needs a massive upgrade, so I'm letting pacman install w/e. Once that's done, I'm going to give intel-dri-git and xf86-intel-video-git a go. Does anyone think I should just go with xf86-intel-video-newest?

I think you should just use the regular drivers. Why do you think you need to use the newest drivers?

quadomatic · 2009-10-25 20:03:28

uncholowapo wrote:

quadomatic wrote:
I've been having interesting crashes for a while now with my GM965. Sometimes I'll be doing something, and the system will appear to stop responding for quite some time, but the mouse cursor will move.
Other times my computer will stop working, the mouse cursor will not move, and I'll have to wait a few moments and the system will become responsive again.
I found out that my system now needs a massive upgrade, so I'm letting pacman install w/e. Once that's done, I'm going to give intel-dri-git and xf86-intel-video-git a go. Does anyone think I should just go with xf86-intel-video-newest?
I think you should just use the regular drivers. Why do you think you need to use the newest drivers?

I'm currently using xf86-video-intel-newest, but an older version than the current one on AUR.

I think I should upgrade, since, well, I'm having problems with what I have now...

tomd123 · 2009-10-25 21:06:00

Wow, looks like I'm one of the lucky ones who has no problems with his hardware

00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/GMS, 943/940GML Express Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 03)

The following are packages that I'm currently using.

local/intel-dri 7.5.1-2
    Mesa DRI drivers for Intel
local/xf86-video-intel 2.8.1-1 (xorg-video-drivers)
    X.org Intel i810/i830/i915/945G/G965+ video drivers
local/mesa-git 20090924-1
    Mesa OpenGL Library from GIT repository
local/glproto-git 20091015-1 (xorg)
    X11 OpenGL extension wire protocol

glxgears output:

4105 frames in 5.0 seconds = 820.703 FPS
4289 frames in 5.0 seconds = 857.634 FPS
4029 frames in 5.0 seconds = 805.744 FPS
4493 frames in 5.0 seconds = 898.480 FPS
4430 frames in 5.0 seconds = 885.641 FPS
4442 frames in 5.0 seconds = 888.312 FPS
3733 frames in 5.0 seconds = 745.942 FPS
4321 frames in 5.0 seconds = 864.089 FPS
4522 frames in 5.0 seconds = 904.376 FPS
4509 frames in 5.0 seconds = 901.663 FPS

I am also getting this performance all while running kde and compiz with some effects Be jealous.

EDIT: added glxgears output

Last edited by tomd123 (2009-10-25 21:10:59)

quadomatic · 2009-10-25 21:46:34

Wow, I am so jealous...

I'm using a newer intel-dri and intel driver than you (and up until a few moments ago I was using the same intel-dri and intel driver as you)...I'm guessing the problem is mesa then. I'm installing mesa-git (which also installs glproto-git) and we'll see what happens.

Last edited by quadomatic (2009-10-25 21:47:09)

makimaki · 2009-10-25 21:53:09

quadomatic wrote:

Wow, I am so jealous...
I'm using a newer intel-dri and intel driver than you (and up until a few moments ago I was using the same intel-dri and intel driver as you)...I'm guessing the problem is mesa then. I'm installing mesa-git (which also installs glproto-git) and we'll see what happens.

I remember Combuster saying there were problems with a certain version of mesa (I can't remember which one, but it was recently). I've been using the git versions of the driver, dri and mesa for a while now, and I haven't had any problems.

quadomatic · 2009-10-25 21:59:41

Well we'll see in a moment if updating mesa to mesa-git makes a difference...I certainly hope so. Urban Terror doesn't exactly run too well.

However, since upgrading I haven't had a crash...which is only been for a few minutes...BUT just being able to start urban terror without experiencing a crash is a triumph in my case. I've been having problems since Ubuntu.

Last edited by quadomatic (2009-10-25 22:00:32)

quadomatic · 2009-10-25 22:28:22

I can't install mesa-git because it conflicts with glew:

mesa-git: /usr/include/GL/glew.h exists in filesystem
mesa-git: /usr/include/GL/glxew.h exists in filesystem
mesa-git: /usr/include/GL/wglew.h exists in filesystem

What can I do?

tomd123 · 2009-10-25 22:35:10

quadomatic wrote:

I can't install mesa-git because it conflicts with glew:
mesa-git: /usr/include/GL/glew.h exists in filesystem
mesa-git: /usr/include/GL/glxew.h exists in filesystem
mesa-git: /usr/include/GL/wglew.h exists in filesystem
What can I do?

remove the files manually (sudo rm files)

Arch Linux

#26 2009-10-12 23:58:02

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#27 2009-10-13 06:19:29

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#28 2009-10-15 04:27:54

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#29 2009-10-15 10:27:25

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#30 2009-10-15 13:31:17

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#31 2009-10-15 15:00:04

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#32 2009-10-15 17:44:41

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#33 2009-10-15 18:19:29

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#34 2009-10-15 18:22:24

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#35 2009-10-15 20:29:33

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#36 2009-10-16 01:25:19

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#37 2009-10-16 02:07:47

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#38 2009-10-16 02:19:20

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#39 2009-10-16 02:56:16

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#40 2009-10-16 03:19:27

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#41 2009-10-17 04:37:31

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#42 2009-10-25 19:44:47

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#43 2009-10-25 19:56:12

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#44 2009-10-25 20:03:28

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#45 2009-10-25 21:06:00

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#46 2009-10-25 21:46:34

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#47 2009-10-25 21:53:09

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#48 2009-10-25 21:59:41

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#49 2009-10-25 22:28:22

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

#50 2009-10-25 22:35:10

Re: Intel Graphics Card's Full Potential

Board footer