What do you get in glxgears?

iBertus · 2005-01-31 04:50:02

I just installed and overclocked a GeForce FX 5700LE and wanted to compare glxgears numbers to other peoples. I realize that glxgears is far from a great benchmark but it at least lets you know if you have issues with your setup.

11706 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2341.200 FPS
13909 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2781.800 FPS
13884 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2776.800 FPS
13958 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2791.600 FPS
13908 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2781.600 FPS

1024x768x24 @ 60 Hz on a Samsung 15" flat panel.

fuse · 2005-01-31 07:15:57

Laptop Nvidia FX go5200 : 1440x900

9558 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1911.600 FPS
9627 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1925.400 FPS
9582 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1916.400 FPS
9677 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1935.400 FPS
9585 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1917.000 FPS

My BFG 6800 GT OC pulls down around 14500 to 15000 : 1280x1024
My BFG 5700 Ultra pulls down around 5000 to 5200 : 1280x1024

shadowhand · 2005-01-31 08:10:51

My Fx5200 pulls about 640.

No, I'm not joking. Take my advice and never buy a cheap video card (ie: Apollo cards). Granted I'm running 1280x1024 with composite enabled, but still, my video card is crap.

Thank god I have a 6600GT PCIX waiting for me to buy a Shuttle SFF and new CPU.

nggalai · 2005-01-31 08:17:09

shadowhand wrote:

My Fx5200 pulls about 640.
No, I'm not joking. Take my advice and never buy a cheap video card (ie: Apollo cards). Granted I'm running 1280x1024 with composite enabled, but still, my video card is crap.
Thank god I have a 6600GT PCIX waiting for me to buy a Shuttle SFF and new CPU.

Did you enable glx-with-composite (Option "AllowGLXWithComposite" "true")
in your xorg.conf? Otherwise, you won't get better numbers even with a 6800 Ultra as glxgears will run in software mode ...

Your 5200 should give you between about 1,500 and 1,900 points, depending on clock rate.

Geforce 5800 (non-ultra), 1600x1200x32 (no, window is not maximised ):

25750 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5150.000 FPS
27034 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5406.800 FPS
27095 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5419.000 FPS
27166 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5433.200 FPS

93,
-Sascha.rb

IceRAM · 2005-01-31 10:26:43

GeForce FX 5700 (GA-N57128DE) - 1024x768, 24b

11220 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2244.000 FPS
11082 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2216.400 FPS
11205 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2241.000 FPS
11220 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2244.000 FPS
11273 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2254.600 FPS

[P4 Prescott 3GHz (with HT)]

dp · 2005-01-31 14:07:30

4632 frames in 5.0 seconds = 926.400 FPS
5513 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1102.600 FPS
5517 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1103.400 FPS
5530 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1106.000 FPS

with

VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon RV200 LX [Mobility FireGL 7800 M7] (rev 0).

using the radeon driver

vacant · 2005-01-31 18:08:07

5488 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1097.600 FPS
6111 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1222.200 FPS
6150 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1230.000 FPS

Duron 900, radeon 9200SE 16bit colour, kernel radeon driver.

Spider.007 · 2005-01-31 19:41:07

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 :?

fuse · 2005-01-31 20:34:19

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.

shadowhand · 2005-01-31 22:01:45

nggalai wrote:

Did you enable glx-with-composite (Option "AllowGLXWithComposite" "true")
in your xorg.conf? Otherwise, you won't get better numbers even with a 6800 Ultra as glxgears will run in software mode ...

Yes, it's enabled. I've tried a lot of different things to get this cards performance up, but it just doesn't happen. I run UT2004 on it at 800x600x32 and get about 40-60 FPS. *shrug* I think it's just because it's a $60 video card by a no-name company. My 6600 GT is by MSI, should beat the pants of this card.

FUBAR · 2005-02-01 08:31:19

3367 frames in 5.0 seconds = 673.400 FPS
3379 frames in 5.0 seconds = 675.800 FPS
3382 frames in 5.0 seconds = 676.400 FPS
3397 frames in 5.0 seconds = 679.400 FPS
3390 frames in 5.0 seconds = 678.000 FPS
3361 frames in 5.0 seconds = 672.200 FPS
3395 frames in 5.0 seconds = 679.000 FPS

AMD Athlon XP 1900+
512MB SDRam
GeForce2 MX-400 32MB

I'm replacing the GF2 with a GF4 Ti4200 today!

FUBAR · 2005-02-01 08:33:16

shadowhand wrote:

nggalai wrote:
Did you enable glx-with-composite (Option "AllowGLXWithComposite" "true")
in your xorg.conf? Otherwise, you won't get better numbers even with a 6800 Ultra as glxgears will run in software mode ...
Yes, it's enabled. I've tried a lot of different things to get this cards performance up, but it just doesn't happen. I run UT2004 on it at 800x600x32 and get about 40-60 FPS. *shrug* I think it's just because it's a $60 video card by a no-name company. My 6600 GT is by MSI, should beat the pants of this card.

Brand doesn't make a big difference with video cards. Only with aspects like cooling and overclockability. Not with stock speed.

nggalai · 2005-02-01 08:33:51

shadowhand wrote:

nggalai wrote:
Did you enable glx-with-composite (Option "AllowGLXWithComposite" "true")
in your xorg.conf? Otherwise, you won't get better numbers even with a 6800 Ultra as glxgears will run in software mode ...
Yes, it's enabled. I've tried a lot of different things to get this cards performance up, but it just doesn't happen. I run UT2004 on it at 800x600x32 and get about 40-60 FPS. *shrug* I think it's just because it's a $60 video card by a no-name company. My 6600 GT is by MSI, should beat the pants of this card.

That's weird ... but then, we might have got one of those "review 5200" which might have been higher clocked, hence the higher numbers ... happens often enough. Any more Geforce 5200 users here? What do you get in glxgears?

93,
-Sascha.rb

nggalai · 2005-02-01 08:41:17

FUBAR wrote:

Brand doesn't make a big difference with video cards. Only with aspects like cooling and overclockability. Not with stock speed.

Yes. But that board might be one of the really cheap ones, with 128 bit RAM interface (instead of the 256 bit). Especially the "cheaper" AIB produced a number of those basically cut-down boards. The box says "GeforceFX 5200", but what you get is a card which basically will be about as fast as a GF4-MX. That won't happen with "better" AIB, or rather is less likely to happen.

93,
-Sascha.rb

FUBAR · 2005-02-01 09:32:04

Oh, ic. I was looking to upgrade my crappy GeForce2 MX-400 and the FX5200 was one of the options. Everybody told me not to buy it tho, since it wouldn't be faster than an GF4 MX.

The thing about the 128 bits interface is a nasty marketing scam tho. I wouldn't expect too much of your FX5200, even though it supports DX9 (not much use in Linux ) it's a crap card. Sorry.

FUBAR · 2005-02-01 10:29:25

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!

mico · 2005-02-01 11:05:26

NVidia GeForce 2 MX 400, 64 MB

$ glxgears 
3495 frames in 5.0 seconds = 699.000 FPS
4013 frames in 5.0 seconds = 802.600 FPS
4013 frames in 5.0 seconds = 802.600 FPS
4012 frames in 5.0 seconds = 802.400 FPS
4013 frames in 5.0 seconds = 802.600 FPS
4013 frames in 5.0 seconds = 802.600 FPS
4012 frames in 5.0 seconds = 802.400 FPS

corky · 2005-02-01 12:37:30

Nvidia GForce FX 5700, 256mb @1280x1024x24

[corky@alecoq ~] -> glxgears
11790 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2358.000 FPS
14664 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2932.800 FPS
14686 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2937.200 FPS
14679 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2935.800 FPS
14688 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2937.600 FPS
14689 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2937.800 FPS
14666 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2933.200 FPS
14686 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2937.200 FPS

IceRAM · 2005-02-01 15:05:14

corky wrote:

Nvidia GForce FX 5700, 256mb @1280x1024x24

How can 256MB bring more than ~700 (~30%) extra frames in 5 secs, compared to 128MB, for that TINY animation? (see my previous post in this thread)
Must be something else in the middle... What CPU? AMD64?

i3839 · 2005-02-01 16:29:10

~ $ glxgears
Xlib: extension "XFree86-DRI" missing on display ":0.0".
571 frames in 5.0 seconds = 114.200 FPS
777 frames in 6.0 seconds = 129.500 FPS
777 frames in 6.0 seconds = 129.500 FPS
648 frames in 5.0 seconds = 129.600 FPS
777 frames in 5.0 seconds = 155.400 FPS

;-)

FUBAR · 2005-02-01 16:30:27

I demand more specific hardware info.

And what does the resolution of X has to do with anything? You're supposed to run glxgears at the default screen size (the size it starts with, showing the window completely, i.e. no other windows on top of it).

fuse · 2005-02-01 19:35:12

FUBAR wrote:

I demand more specific hardware info.
And what does the resolution of X has to do with anything? You're supposed to run glxgears at the default screen size (the size it starts with, showing the window completely, i.e. no other windows on top of it).

You will gain more FPS, I would guess the refresh rate and things have something to do with this, much like a game. A lot of things will effect glxgears WM/DM, resolution, refresh rates(??), cpu, depth.

640x480 (85hz) instead of what I posted before at 1440x900 (60hz) depth 24

[fuse@undertow ~]$ glxgears
8881 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1776.200 FPS
10229 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2045.800 FPS
10228 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2045.600 FPS
10214 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2042.800 FPS
10226 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2045.200 FPS
10209 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2041.800 FPS
10223 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2044.600 FPS
10233 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2046.600 FPS
X connection to :0.0 broken (explicit kill or server shutdown).
[fuse@undertow ~]$

1440x900 depth 16

[fuse@undertow ~]$ glxgears
11485 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2297.000 FPS
13288 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2657.600 FPS
13282 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2656.400 FPS
13290 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2658.000 FPS
13281 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2656.200 FPS
13274 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2654.800 FPS
13286 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2657.200 FPS
13285 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2657.000 FPS
13292 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2658.400 FPS
13282 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2656.400 FPS
13296 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2659.200 FPS
13288 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2657.600 FPS
13300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2660.000 FPS
13297 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2659.400 FPS
13294 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2658.800 FPS
13295 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2659.000 FPS
13294 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2658.800 FPS

corky · 2005-02-01 19:54:07

IceRAM wrote:

corky wrote:
Nvidia GForce FX 5700, 256mb @1280x1024x24
How can 256MB bring more than ~700 (~30%) extra frames in 5 secs, compared to 128MB, for that TINY animation? (see my previous post in this thread)
Must be something else in the middle... What CPU? AMD64?

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.

IceRAM · 2005-02-01 23:07:47

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.

iBertus · 2005-02-01 23:25:06

Just a note that all FX5200's are either 128-bit or 64-bit. So, the 128-bit version is the top-end 5200, if you can say one is top-end. The FX line in general is underpowered and with only 4 pipelines it's hard for this card to compete with even the previous generation of cards in applications that depend more on fillrate than shaders.

Arch Linux

#1 2005-01-31 04:50:02

What do you get in glxgears?

#2 2005-01-31 07:15:57

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#3 2005-01-31 08:10:51

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#4 2005-01-31 08:17:09

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#5 2005-01-31 10:26:43

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#6 2005-01-31 14:07:30

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#7 2005-01-31 18:08:07

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#8 2005-01-31 19:41:07

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#9 2005-01-31 20:34:19

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#10 2005-01-31 22:01:45

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#11 2005-02-01 08:31:19

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#12 2005-02-01 08:33:16

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#13 2005-02-01 08:33:51

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#14 2005-02-01 08:41:17

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#15 2005-02-01 09:32:04

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#16 2005-02-01 10:29:25

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#17 2005-02-01 11:05:26

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#18 2005-02-01 12:37:30

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#19 2005-02-01 15:05:14

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#20 2005-02-01 16:29:10

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#21 2005-02-01 16:30:27

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#22 2005-02-01 19:35:12

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#23 2005-02-01 19:54:07

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#24 2005-02-01 23:07:47

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

#25 2005-02-01 23:25:06

Re: What do you get in glxgears?

Board footer