<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW --- - glCallLists performance extremely slow"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61412#c4">Comment # 4</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW --- - glCallLists performance extremely slow"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61412">bug 61412</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:rexhunter99@gmail.com" title="James Ogden <rexhunter99@gmail.com>"> <span class="fn">James Ogden</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=61412#c3">comment #3</a>)
<span class="quote">> Please, please, please don't use display lists, and don't use bitmaps.
> Display lists are basically nvidia-only for performance, so it's a bad route
> to go. Use normal texturing and "discard" instructions to render your
> bitmaps, or normal texturing and alhpa blending if you're doing fixed
> function. Sticking your textures in one big atlas and vertex data in a vbo,
> you'll get way better performance than you'd ever get out of bitmap.</span >
Really dude, did you not read anything I said? It's a compatibility thing,
plus the people who play this game are mostly either kids or computer
illiterates so if a font texture goes bye bye because of something silly they
did, I'll be the one who has to personally troubleshoot their issue. I *want*
to use the proper method, but I've had that many issues in the past with
relying on users being intelligent enough to keep track of their file system
that I now know better. I know they're slow, I know they're deprecated and I
do care, but I don't have much choice if I want to stay sane.
Oh and my last machine was an AMD ATi setup, dual radeon graphics, display
lists worked fine using the official drivers, or 3rd party ones, I just hate
APUs which is why I upgraded as soon as the laptop died before the warranty ran
out. So this isn't a case of nvidia drivers being better than the rest.
(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=61412#c2">comment #2</a>)
<span class="quote">> Yeah, I think we're relying on the meta path for glBitmap in many cases. We're > probably hitting software rasterization.
>
> Still, 120 fps -> 8 fps is clearly not reasonable.
>
> What generation of Intel hardware are you running? (lspci -nn would tell you.) > Can you post an apitrace which exhibits the problem?</span >
I'm not sure how much I trust lspci's information, it thinks I have a Xeon
server processor :/ I'm running an Intel i5 Gen 3 Core processor the 3210M
model IvyBridge.
The VGA section for the low-performance side of things states an Intel 3rd Gen
Graphics Controller. Not a lot of help on that side.
(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=61412#c1">comment #1</a>)
<span class="quote">> glBitmap, not glCallLists, is probably the real issue. It might be helpful
> to see the "OpenGL renderer string" from glxinfo to identify the GPU. I
> suspect the i965 driver needs some sort of glBitmap caching mechanism
> (similar to what's in the gallium state tracker) to improve performance.</span >
Renderer is Mesa 9.0 I believe, like I said, it's using Mesa drivers.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>