Radeon Driver Default Display Resolution
hamish at travellingkiwi.com
Tue Apr 1 15:40:23 PDT 2008
On Tuesday 01 April 2008 13:10:49 you wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:41 AM, Hamish <hamish at travellingkiwi.com> wrote:
> > On Monday 31 March 2008 23:36:15 you wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Hamish <hamish at travellingkiwi.com>
> > > wrote:
> > [deleted]
> > > > On the same vein... I find my X600 to be really really slow..
> > > > Painfully slow. Could that be due to too a large desktop
> > > > (2704x1050)? Or am I doing something wrong? Is an X600 just a slow
> > > > card? I thought it should be good enought for compiz even... But
> > > > only if you're prepared for several seconds wait whenever focus
> > > > changes...
> > >
> > > The coordinate limits of the 3D engine are 2560x2560 and the max
> > > texture size is 2048x2048. Beyond these limits you are left with
> > > basic 2D accel, which doesn't do much for modern desktops. For now
> > > you'll probably have better luck with XAA if you were using EXA.
> > That 2560x2560... Is that a hardware or software limit? If I upgraded
> > the card to a 3650 or 3850 would there still be these limits? (I tried
> > EXA for about 10 minutes... That was unusable... You could see the window
> > scrolling... Slower than an old XT (I mean PC-XT) with 80x25 green
> > screen).
> It's a HW limit. r6xx chips support 8k surfaces, but there's no 3D support
> > However I also tried a virtual desktop of 2048x1050... And got two
> > display of 1024 width. And the X600 was just as slow then as it was with
> > the 2704 virtual width. (I verified the 2048 virtual width by attempting
> > to resize the large monitor to 1680x1050, and got the xrandr error that
> > the virtual size was only 2048).
> When you say slow what do you mean? compiz? something else? I
> regularly use large dualhead desktops and performance is fine.
Ah. Everything basically... Exceot maybe moving static windows (e.g. xterm)
around and drawing text... For example compiz you can see updating the
windows. Moving focus with transparency changes is a couple of seconds per
> > I ran up oprofile... But gentoo strips libGL and the only info it gives
> > me at the moment is that any app spends all it's time somewhere in there.
> > Even if it's only a 1024x768 window... (I take it the 3D engine is
> > disabled completely is the screen area is over the limits, rather than on
> > a per-window/GLXContext basis?
> what sort of app are you running? if it's libGL, presumably you are
> using some sort of GL desktop or application.
Ah. It's an openGL app I wrote. It displays textures (Loaded as png's) in a 4
sided cube (No top or bottom). The textures are rrd graphs...
On an nvidia 8600GTS I get > 50fps with FSAA enabled and about 2% CPU with
about 1100x900 window size (Without FSAA I can get the full dual display @ >
50fps and a few % CPU). With X1400 (Which should be not a lot faster than the
X600 according to raw stats?) and fglrx drivers I can get 1680x1050 full
screen at > 50fps almost 0% CPU.
But with he X600 I get 100% CPU utilisation, somewher between 0 - 1 fps (And
the textures all display as a grey rectangle as well, but I'll try & solve
the speed first since I have an older version that the textures work, but
just as slow).
I ran up sysprof. And according to it I get most of the time spent between
radeonWriteDepthSpan_z24_s8, radeonReadDepthSpan_z24_s8, and
radeonReadRGBASpan_ARGB8888. Then a little bit of time (e.g about 1/20 of the
total) in sample_2d_linear and a couple of other routines... But the majority
in those 3 top routines from libGL.
I'll have to peruse the sources from mesa to know what those all do... AM I
killing things by running at a depth of 24bits? Should I bet at 32? (The
config was written by X -configure because of the original config I had
caused a blank screen).
> > H
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the xorg