Poor compositing performance on 965Q chipset with intel 2.2.1 driver

[Marius Gedminas]

On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 04:52:24PM +0100, Barry Scott wrote:
> Marius Gedminas wrote:
> > On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 07:39:47AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> >> $ x11perf -shmput500
> >>
> >> If that gives you a number significantly less than 1000, then your pages
> >> are probably mis-mapped.
> >>     
> >
> > Which number is that?  The # per second?
> >
> > mg at platonas:~ $ x11perf -shmput500
...
> >   16000 trep @   1.6986 msec (   589.0/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square
> >
> > This is with GM965 and intel driver 2.2.1, but I haven't noticed poor
> > compositing performance.
> >
> > Marius Gedminas
> >   
> Try playing a movie full screen and look at the CPU used by Xorg. At
> 1360x768 on a Due Core 2 CPU top says that Xorg is using 50%. On the
> 945 and Q35 I see 2%.

At 1280x1024 (with a 624x480 movie):

  mplayer -fs -vo x11 uses 30% CPU, X uses < 7%.
  mplayer -fs -vo xv uses 7% CPU, X uses < 7%.

With a 1280x720 movie

  mplayer -fs -vo x11 uses 40% CPU, X uses < 7%.
  mplayer -fs -vo xv uses 35% CPU, X uses < 7%.

The CPU is a 1.8 GHz Core 2 Duo.  The X server CPU usage jumps between
0.7% and 7% because I'm switching between xterms and typing this email
on the other screen (dual-head is fun!).

A difference between the 965Q and the mobile GM965?  Some X server/intel
driver patch applied by Ubuntu?

I only entered this thread because I was bored, saw a benchmark and was
uncertain about the meaning of the numbers.

Marius Gedminas
-- 
I used to be an agnostic, but now I'm not so sure.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20080509/26ccb3e0/attachment.pgp>