What do you get in glxgears?

sud_crow · 2005-02-02 00:53:56

CPU: P3 550@733
GPU: GeForce2 MX 32Mb / AGP4x (the original)
Display: 1600x1200, 24bit

2383 frames in 5.0 seconds = 476.600 FPS
2838 frames in 5.0 seconds = 567.600 FPS
2610 frames in 5.0 seconds = 522.000 FPS
2724 frames in 5.0 seconds = 544.800 FPS
2724 frames in 5.0 seconds = 544.800 FPS
2724 frames in 5.0 seconds = 544.800 FPS

After a while it just fixed at that FPS.
I think im the crappiest of them all :*(

iBertus · 2005-02-02 02:14:17

IceRAM wrote:

corky wrote:
Nothing so fancy, its quite an antiquated p4 2.4 (no HT) compared to yours, I do have FastWrites and SBA enabled though, using nvagp.
Maybe FastWrites has something to do with this (SBA is enabled)... I didn't get the system for the graphics and I wasn't interested. I'll check it out.

Fastwrites shouldn't make that large of difference in glxgears. It really only makes ~5-10% difference in games if it makes a difference at all. Are you using the kernel agp module or the build-in nvidia agp support? Anything could make a difference but my guess is that it's probably memory timings or non-standard gpu/gram clock speeds making such a large difference. Some card brands use really good memory even on their lower end configuration. Another very good possiblity is that the 256MB card has a different firmware version than the 128MB version.

Spider.007 · 2005-02-02 19:38:19

fuse wrote:

Spider.007 wrote:
I get
Xlib:  extension "GLX" missing on display ":0.0".
glxgears: Error: couldn't get an RGB, Double-buffered visual.
And I still didn't figure out how to get rid of it; the GLX extension is specified in my Xorg.conf file :?
What graphics card do you have? If its Nvidia install the Nvidia drivers, ATI do the same. If you have already done that make sure you add nvidia or fglrx (for ATI) to your /etc/rc.conf modules.

I did all that; after extensive research I found that the Composit extension will disable the GLX extension.....

tmadhavan · 2005-02-03 10:54:35

AthlonXP 2000+, 512MB, GF4 Ti4200 64MB

16297 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3259.400 FPS
18623 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3724.600 FPS
9765 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1953.000 FPS
18932 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3786.400 FPS
18932 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3786.400 FPS
18936 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3787.200 FPS
18929 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3785.800 FPS
18860 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3772.000 FPS

soffcore · 2005-02-03 15:49:07

FUBAR wrote:

I just installed my new GF4 Ti4200 (got in eBay for 43€!) and I have to say ... I'm blown away by the scores!
16777 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3355.400 FPS
16911 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3382.200 FPS
16962 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3392.400 FPS
16805 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3361.000 FPS
16912 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3382.400 FPS
16846 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3369.200 FPS
16874 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3374.800 FPS
This is a HUGE performance increase! Happy happy, joy joy!

I roughly got the same scores, just a bit higher on mine tho (Gefoce 4 Ti4600 )

skoal · 2005-02-03 16:02:10

soffcore wrote:

[...]I roughly got the same scores, just a bit higher on mine tho (Gefoce 4 Ti4600 )

Hey soffcore, I'm glad to see someone else with a Ti-4600. At 24bpp, I get roughly 4600 fps. At 16bpp, It's near 7900. Resolution doesn't seem to affect it.

If I turn on "fastwrites" or "SBA", I get a little more, but it's not worth the instability.

My younger cousin has a Ti-4800SE at 8x. He gets about 500-1000 more fps in glxgears than I do. It seems to translate into about 5-10 extra FPS on most OpenGL apps.

soffcore · 2005-02-03 16:24:24

skoal wrote:

Hey soffcore, I'm glad to see someone else with a Ti-4600. At 24bpp, I get roughly 4600 fps. At 16bpp, It's near 7900. Resolution doesn't seem to affect it.
If I turn on "fastwrites" or "SBA", I get a little more, but it's not worth the instability.
My younger cousin has a Ti-4800SE at 8x. He gets about 500-1000 more fps in glxgears than I do. It seems to translate into about 5-10 extra FPS on most OpenGL apps.

I was pleased when I installed and played ut2003 at 1280x1024 (32bpp) with a higher fram rate than I ever got in Windows

EDIT: Ok just got home from work and here are my gear stats:

21549 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4309.800 FPS
21518 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4303.600 FPS
21399 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4279.800 FPS
21465 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4293.000 FPS
21414 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4282.800 FPS

UNIX4ALL · 2005-02-05 01:19:22

Hi!:

ASUS V9520TD ( FX5200, 128 bit, 256MB),

here the results with 1152x864@75 24 bit depth,

[jacobo@sauron ~]$ glxgears
8486 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1697.200 FPS
10416 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2083.200 FPS
10541 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2108.200 FPS
10564 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2112.800 FPS
10560 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2112.000 FPS

I think it´s good results for a FX5200 :-) ( Asus Rockz ).

The system is

P4, 3.06ghz HT 533FSB
Asus P4G8X Deluxe ( Intel E7205, Granite Bay ).
1024MB RAM DDR PC2700 Dual Channel.

[/url]

MaceM · 2005-02-05 11:54:03

hi

gf5900ultra
athlonxp 3,2

1280x1024

42121 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8424.200 FPS
42622 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8524.400 FPS
42713 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8542.600 FPS
42566 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8513.200 FPS
41014 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8202.800 FPS

iphitus · 2005-02-05 14:10:16

Intel Integrated

5667 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1133.400 FPS
5645 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1129.000 FPS
5655 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1131.000 FPS
5652 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1130.400 FPS

UNIX4ALL: if you're only getting about 2000ish on a FX, you *really* have something wrong there. Make sure its not on software, maybe update drivers. I have shit integrated stuff and im gettin 1100.

iphitus

iBertus · 2005-02-12 06:34:05

@iphitus

He has an FX 5200 which is basically the MX of the FX series. Hell, I only get ~2500 with a 5700LE overclocked to 380/450 on an Athlon XP Barton running at 2.38 Ghz. I'm sure that direct rendering is working over here but my score seems limited by the poor fill rates of the FX series cards. Only the FX 5900 and 5950 are really worth their price.[/quote]

allanon · 2005-02-14 23:11:45

I have a 2.4 Celeron with a GForce2 MX400. Running xorg with composite in 1280x1024x16bit.

4735 frames in 5.0 seconds = 947.000 FPS
5691 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1138.200 FPS
5797 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1159.400 FPS
5615 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1123.000 FPS
5274 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1054.800 FPS
5425 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1085.000 FPS
6370 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1274.000 FPS

I just installed xorg 6.8.2, and my Enemy Territory performance dropped like a bucket of stones. As I was experimenting with several things (kde 3.4 beta 2, composite, AllowGLXWithComposite, etc) , it was a bit hard to find the culprit, and going back to 6.8.1 did not fix it. Seems like 6.8.2 overwrote something from the nvidia package, as reinstalling the nvidia package fixed it. [/code]

Duke · 2005-02-15 00:43:59

10316 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2063.200 FPS
10266 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2053.200 FPS
10273 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2054.600 FPS
10311 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2062.200 FPS
10258 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2051.600 FPS
10322 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2064.400 FPS
10286 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2057.200 FPS

Heh, yeah, I wasn't expecting too much, but I guess I didn't fair that badly. This is with a ati radeon 8500 (not sure if it's LE or not). Before I had a nvidia, but I got pissed off with having to upgrade drivers all the time and deal with problems when new version of xorg were released or when new kernels changed things.

So I got to wondering, wouldn't it be cool if the X drivers were part of X and the kernel modules were actually part of the kernel distribution... WOW! They are... For ATI cards that is. So I slapped in this old radeon and use the open source DRI drivers that are a part of X and the kernel.

There's no way I'd ever go near the ati proprietary drivers, since I hear they have even more problems than the nvidia proprietary drivers, but I wonder how the performance varies between the open source drivers I'm using and ati's own...

skoal · 2005-02-16 07:46:59

_p00p_ wrote:

Heres Mine
24932 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4986.400 FPS
Athlon Xp 2800+, Nvidia Ti 4600

Ah, indeed. So your extra 1GHz proc over my 1.8GHz translates into ~+500 on glxgears. When I had my old PIII-800 MHz, with this same Ti-4600, I saw the exact same increase in FPS with the new rig (including 800MHz RDRAM), about 500 on glxgears. But, on all other GL apps, nothing tangible...

So, that settles that question. CPU or GPU upgrade? Which means more? What about my old GF2 in my new rig you ask? I tried that too, still 1000+~200 increase in glxgears with the new P4 (and those results were only in 16bpp). In 16bpp now with the Ti-4600 and P4, ~8000fps...QED.

STiAT · 2005-02-16 08:23:48

Xlib:  extension "GLX" missing on display ":0.0".
glxgears: Error: couldn't get an RGB, Double-buffered visual.

Dont need GLX.

sear · 2005-04-09 10:57:10

38542 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7708.400 FPS
38558 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7711.600 FPS

yeah...

this is a amd 64 3500+, a gigabyte of kingston ram and a geforce 4 ti 4200!

LB06 · 2005-04-10 21:00:35

Intel i855GM w/ DRI:

3642 frames in 5.0 seconds = 728.400 FPS
3977 frames in 5.0 seconds = 795.400 FPS
3974 frames in 5.0 seconds = 794.800 FPS
3973 frames in 5.0 seconds = 794.600 FPS
3976 frames in 5.0 seconds = 795.200 FPS

CrayMk7 · 2005-04-11 09:53:19

GForce4 4200, Athlon XP 2800+, 24bpp.

14311 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2862.200 FPS
17557 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3511.400 FPS
17611 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3522.200 FPS
17631 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3526.200 FPS
17554 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3510.800 FPS

d3c3it · 2005-04-11 12:37:47

iphitus wrote:

Intel Integrated
5667 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1133.400 FPS
5645 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1129.000 FPS
5655 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1131.000 FPS
5652 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1130.400 FPS
UNIX4ALL: if you're only getting about 2000ish on a FX, you *really* have something wrong there. Make sure its not on software, maybe update drivers. I have shit integrated stuff and im gettin 1100.

iphitus

I have to disagree ive got an fx5200 on my laptop and i get simular results, its not a beasty card.

I get around 4800 on my ati radeon 9800 (desktop), either ive done something wrong or the ati drivers are really shit (im willing to be the latter as its always been like this)

iphitus · 2005-04-11 13:54:52

Aye, i was corrected before, i was under the impression that the whole FX line was beasty. As has been said, i was wrong.

swazo · 2005-04-20 02:14:57

Just installed Nvidia drivers ^_^ Geforce nx6600 w/ pci-express

[swazo@teflon ~]$ glxgears
26842 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5368.400 FPS
28499 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5699.800 FPS
29333 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5866.600 FPS
32833 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6566.600 FPS
36187 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7237.400 FPS
41519 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8303.800 FPS
42247 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8449.400 FPS
42535 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8507.000 FPS
41436 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8287.200 FPSX
connection to :0.0 broken (explicit kill or server shutdown).
[swazo@teflon ~]$

AMD64 3200+ (K8N Neo4 Platinum)
1gb ram

sesser · 2005-11-11 15:47:02

14199 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2839.800 FPS
15341 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3068.200 FPS
15339 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3067.800 FPS
15357 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3071.400 FPS
15291 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3058.200 FPS
15339 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3067.800 FPS
15326 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3065.200 FPS

Athlon64 3000+ (@2430Mhz)
XFX GeForce 6600LE PCIE

codergeek42 · 2005-11-11 18:21:14

~1550 frames/second on my box.

fedaykin · 2005-11-11 20:06:28

Are you guys all running using the default window size? With the deafault I get ~15,000fps (bfg 6800 overclocked) but it's significantly less (~6,000) in fullscreen.

Gullible Jones · 2005-11-11 21:03:25

About 500, at normal size. Maybe 40-50 fullscreen.

(And 20-30 FPS in Cube. Onboard video hardware has gotten insanely powerful.)

Arch Linux

#26 2005-02-02 00:53:56

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#27 2005-02-02 02:14:17

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#28 2005-02-02 19:38:19

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#29 2005-02-03 10:54:35

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#30 2005-02-03 15:49:07

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#31 2005-02-03 16:02:10

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#32 2005-02-03 16:24:24

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#33 2005-02-05 01:19:22

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#34 2005-02-05 11:54:03

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#35 2005-02-05 14:10:16

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#36 2005-02-12 06:34:05

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#37 2005-02-14 23:11:45

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#38 2005-02-15 00:43:59

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#39 2005-02-16 07:46:59

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#40 2005-02-16 08:23:48

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#41 2005-04-09 10:57:10

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#42 2005-04-10 21:00:35

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#43 2005-04-11 09:53:19

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#44 2005-04-11 12:37:47

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#45 2005-04-11 13:54:52

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#46 2005-04-20 02:14:57

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#47 2005-11-11 15:47:02

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#48 2005-11-11 18:21:14

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#49 2005-11-11 20:06:28

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#50 2005-11-11 21:03:25

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

Board footer