nvidia 180.22: mrxvt transparency and reasonable benchmarks

B-Con · 2009-01-25 06:53:01

I just got a 9800GT a few days ago. Just now I upgraded from 173.X nVidia drivers to the newest 180 in the repositories. Two questions:

1) The tabbar transparency in MRXVT has been messed up with the driver upgrade. When I was using 173, it was fine, but using 180 breaks it. Now the tabbar has an odd semi-transparent hue to it, although other mrxvt transparency is fine. IIRC when I tried 177.X I had the same problem. Here's my xorg.conf, do I need to enable anything new with the latest driver? The only transparent-ish thing that has broken is the mrxvt tabbar. I'm not even using real transparency, just pseudo.

Section "ServerLayout"
    Identifier     "X.org Configured"
    Screen      0  "Screen0" 0 0
    InputDevice    "Mouse0" "CorePointer"
#    InputDevice    "Keyboard0" "CoreKeyboard"
EndSection

Section "Files"
#    RgbPath      "/usr/share/X11/rgb"
    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  "GLcore"
    Load  "dbe"
    Load  "xtrap"
    Load  "record"
    Load  "extmod"
    Load  "dri"
    Load  "glx"
    Load  "freetype"
EndSection

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

Section "InputDevice"
    Identifier  "Mouse0"
    Driver      "mouse"
    Option        "Protocol" "auto"
    Option        "Device" "/dev/input/mice"
    Option        "ZAxisMapping" "4 5 6 7"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
    #DisplaySize      340   270    # mm
    Identifier   "Monitor0"
    VendorName   "SAM"
    ModelName    "SyncMaster"
 ### Comment all HorizSync and VertRefresh values to use DDC:
    HorizSync    30.0 - 81.0
    VertRefresh  56.0 - 75.0
    Option        "DPMS"
EndSection

Section "Device"
        ### Available Driver options are:-
        ### Values: <i>: integer, <f>: float, <bool>: "True"/"False",
        ### <string>: "String", <freq>: "<f> Hz/kHz/MHz"
        ### [arg]: arg optional
        #Option     "SWcursor"               # [<bool>]
        #Option     "HWcursor"               # [<bool>]
        #Option     "NoAccel"                # [<bool>]
        #Option     "ShadowFB"               # [<bool>]
        #Option     "UseFBDev"               # [<bool>]
        #Option     "Rotate"                 # [<str>]
        #Option     "VideoKey"               # <i>
        #Option     "FlatPanel"              # [<bool>]
        #Option     "FPDither"               # [<bool>]
        #Option     "CrtcNumber"             # <i>
        #Option     "FPScale"                # [<bool>]
        #Option     "FPTweak"                # <i>
        #Option     "DualHead"               # [<bool>]
    Identifier  "Card0"
    Driver      "nvidia"
    VendorName  "nVidia Corporation"
    BoardName   "GeForce 9800GT"
    BusID       "PCI:1:0:0"
EndSection

Section "Screen"
    Identifier "Screen0"
    Device     "Card0"
    Monitor    "Monitor0"
    DefaultDepth    24
    Option        "NoLogo" "True"
    Option        "RenderAccel" "True"
    Option        "AllowGLXWithComposite" "True"
    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

2) I ran glxgears on the old and new drivers. The old ones yielded about 6800 - 6900 FPS on average. The new ones yield about 6900 - 7000 FPS on average. So, about a ~50FPS improvement, not much to write home about. I've looked through other threads and this seems to be about on par for the graphics card I have (but I hear that on other distros nVidia cards can get much better benchmarks). Just want to check, does that sound about right? I'm unexperienced with tweaking Xorg for graphics performance and I basically just have what nvidia-config spit out.

Thanks.

Devastator · 2009-01-25 10:24:51

In the terms of performance - 3D renderingwasn't improved much, but I have checked 2D performance with gtkperf (so specifically - the GUI rendering)

On 177.82 all tests took about 9.5 seconds
On 180.22 they drop down to just 6.5 second, so it's almost 1/3 faster.
Also - the PowerMizer become more responsive, and Compiz lags no more .

About the options - I am not much experienced, but I think, that

Option "TripleBuffer" "True"

may give some boost.

B-Con · 2009-01-25 11:56:53

Cool, thanks for the suggestion. And I didn't know about gtkperf.

Zibi1981 · 2009-01-26 19:42:54

From our wiki

Enable TripleBuffer
Enable the use of triple buffering by adding under Device section the "TripleBuffer" Option.
Option "TripleBuffer" "True"
Use this option if your GPU has plenty of ram (128mb and more) and combined with "Sync to VBlank". You may enable sync to vblank in nvidia-settings.

Last edited by Zibi1981 (2009-01-26 19:43:31)

LeoSolaris · 2009-01-27 13:27:46

You could always try dropping to the very bottom of the conf file and adding

Section "Extensions"
    Option "Composite" "Enabled"
EndSection

That would allow for true transparency, rather than pseudo-trans. It may not help in your case, but it is worth a shot. Besides, true trans ends up looking better. I've tried them both under Openbox, and I've found that pseudo-trans just looks like a graphical error. (The transset-df package is a welcome boon, and not at all stressful to a newer system.)

B-Con · 2009-01-28 02:31:33

LeoSolaris wrote:

You could always try dropping to the very bottom of the conf file and adding
Section "Extensions"
    Option "Composite" "Enabled"
EndSection
That would allow for true transparency, rather than pseudo-trans. It may not help in your case, but it is worth a shot. Besides, true trans ends up looking better. I've tried them both under Openbox, and I've found that pseudo-trans just looks like a graphical error. (The transset-df package is a welcome boon, and not at all stressful to a newer system.)

True transparency? I thought you had to use a composite WM to get real transparency. How does pseudo-transparency work? Don't programs like mrxvt just use the set root background as their own, or is psueudo-transparency a built-in function that a program requests, that can be changed to real transparency?

LeoSolaris · 2009-01-29 18:15:35

Pseudo transparency works by placing a copy of your background in the background of your window. (like behind the words in your terminal)

True Transparency will do that, and add an image of your other windows that are behind the transparent window.

If you enable composite, (have a graphics card that can handle it), install xcompmgr and transset-df, then add

xcompmgr -C &  # The & keeps it from waiting for the program to stop before doing anything else.

to you autostart, it will enable transparency. I'm using openbox and it works beautifully.

Here is my .Xdefaults (by the way if it doesn't exist, you can create it in your user folder, just don't miss the' . ' !

URxvt*foreground:  #A8A8A8
URxvt*scrollBar_right:    false
URxvt*scrollBar:    true
URxvt*scrollstyle: plain
URxvt*borderLess:    false
URxvt*inheritPixmap:    true
URxvt*geometry:        124x24
URxvt*tint:        white
URxvt*font: xft:monofur:size=8
#URxvt*font: xft:terminus-font:
#URxvt*font: xft:anorexia
URxvt*color0:      #000000
URxvt*color1:      #A80000
URxvt*color2:      #00A800
URxvt*color3:      #A85400
URxvt*color4:      #0000A8
URxvt*color5:      #A800A8
URxvt*color6:      #00A8A8
URxvt*color7:      #A8A8A8
URxvt*color8:      #545054
URxvt*color9:      #F85450
URxvt*color10:     #50FC50
URxvt*color11:     #F2FC50
URxvt*color12:     #5054F8
URxvt*color13:     #F854F8
URxvt*color14:     #50FCF8
URxvt*color15:     #F8FCF8

## xterm config
xterm*termName: xterm
xterm*background: #000000
xterm*foreground: #A8A8A8

urxvt*depth: 32
urxvt*background: rgba:0000/0000/0000/dddd #the transparent magic happens here!

URxvt.perl-ext-common: default,matcher
URxvt.urlLauncher: firefox
URxvt.matcher.button: 2
URxvt*matcher.pattern.1: \\b(mailto|http|https|ftp|file):[/]*[\\w-]\\.[\\w./?&@#-]*[\\w/-]
URxvt*matcher.pattern.2: \\bwww\\.[\\w-]\\.[\\w./?&@#-]*[\\w/-

I use urxvt, but if you just change the u to an m, it 'should' work.

Last edited by LeoSolaris (2009-01-29 18:28:15)

B-Con · 2009-01-29 21:55:22

Thanks for that. I've tried enabling true transparency. It seems nice enough, but although it looks snazzier I don't really see it as any more useful. I only enabled pseudo-transparency to get a nice background for the terminal anyway. Having Firefox in the background when I type, regardless of the opacity level, doesn't provide as nice a contract. However, now I never have to minimize my terminal when I'm reading in FX.

Oddly I still have the same problem with the white tab bar. I rolled back to the old nvidia drivers and pseudo-trans looks find, but true trans gives a very non-transparent white hue to the tab bar, which a) makes it hard to read the tab titles, and b) is very distracting.

Is there anyone else who uses Mrxvt with either real or pseudo-trans with this problem?

LeoSolaris · 2009-01-30 01:43:18

For that one, nope, sorry.

May want to check mrxvt's webpage to see if there is a bug report, and if not, file one.

Either that or roll back to the previous drivers. Might loss you that bonus to your fps, but at least the glitch will not annoy you.

B-Con · 2009-01-30 02:01:13

Yeah, I did roll back the drivers. I see nothing on mrxvt's site about the problem, maybe I should file a bug report.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-01-25 06:53:01

nvidia 180.22: mrxvt transparency and reasonable benchmarks

#2 2009-01-25 10:24:51

Re: nvidia 180.22: mrxvt transparency and reasonable benchmarks

#3 2009-01-25 11:56:53

Re: nvidia 180.22: mrxvt transparency and reasonable benchmarks

#4 2009-01-26 19:42:54

Re: nvidia 180.22: mrxvt transparency and reasonable benchmarks

#5 2009-01-27 13:27:46

Re: nvidia 180.22: mrxvt transparency and reasonable benchmarks

#6 2009-01-28 02:31:33

Re: nvidia 180.22: mrxvt transparency and reasonable benchmarks

#7 2009-01-29 18:15:35

Re: nvidia 180.22: mrxvt transparency and reasonable benchmarks

#8 2009-01-29 21:55:22

Re: nvidia 180.22: mrxvt transparency and reasonable benchmarks

#9 2009-01-30 01:43:18

Re: nvidia 180.22: mrxvt transparency and reasonable benchmarks

#10 2009-01-30 02:01:13

Re: nvidia 180.22: mrxvt transparency and reasonable benchmarks

Board footer