Go Back   Rage3D » Rage3D Discussion Area » Computing Forums » Operating Systems » Linux » Drivers
Rage3D Subscribe Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Drivers Discussion forum for Linux drivers.

"
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Feb 13, 2005, 08:57 PM   #1
Advertisement (Guests Only)

Login or Register to remove this ad
jpilotus
Radeon HD 6670
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 40
jpilotus is still being judged by the masses


Default Is 2d acceleration really this bad?

Ok... I've installed a new motherboard (NF7-S) and decided to try the latest (6_8_0-8.8.25) driver out once more in the hopes that it will play nice with the new chipset. I was obliged to disable the ATI internal agpgart, and use the kernel's nvidia agpgart. So far it seems to be stable.

There's just one thing. 2d acceleration is baad. When switching workspaces, for instance... I see the wallpaper draw before the windows fill in... and scrolling in rxvt takes about 50% CPU time and comes in waves. I found some mention that disabling dri for the fglrx driver with the "no_dri" option would help, at the expense of losing 3d acceleration. It seems not to help at all, though. For the sake of argument, I ran "x11perf -copypixpix500" with the fglrx driver and DRI enabled, then ran it again with the fglrx driver and DRI disabled and, finally, with the X.org generic radeon driver...

EDIT: Oops... just discovered that completely disabling glx and DRI by commenting out the "load "glx"" and "load "dri""' statements in xorg.conf does yield fast 2d acceleration. Please ignore the bit about "no_dri" not working. Disabling DRI does work if you do it correctly.

Another Edit: Gawd... I spoke too soon. Disabling DRI and glx does make the x11perf test run at high speed but, the slow window drawing and slow scrolling issues don't get any better.

Code:
fglrx With DRI Enabled:
==============================================

x11perf - X11 performance program, version 1.5
The X.Org Foundation server version 60801000 on :0.0
from yomomma
Sun Feb 13 20:27:20 2005

Sync time adjustment is 0.0182 msecs.

   3600 reps @   1.5171 msec (   659.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   3600 reps @   1.5166 msec (   659.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   3600 reps @   1.5174 msec (   659.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   3600 reps @   1.5498 msec (   645.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   3600 reps @   1.5327 msec (   652.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
  18000 trep @   1.5267 msec (   655.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap


fglrx With DRI Disabled:
=================================================

x11perf - X11 performance program, version 1.5
The X.Org Foundation server version 60801000 on :0.0
from yomomma
Sun Feb 13 20:32:02 2005

Sync time adjustment is 0.0193 msecs.

   3600 reps @   1.5426 msec (   648.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   3600 reps @   1.5425 msec (   648.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   3600 reps @   1.5421 msec (   648.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   3600 reps @   1.5425 msec (   648.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   3600 reps @   1.5424 msec (   648.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
  18000 trep @   1.5424 msec (   648.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap

X.org 6.8.1 generic 2d radeon driver:
=====================================

x11perf - X11 performance program, version 1.5
The X.Org Foundation server version 60801000 on :0.0
from yomomma
Sun Feb 13 20:36:31 2005

Sync time adjustment is 0.0159 msecs.

  28000 reps @   0.2014 msec (  4970.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
  28000 reps @   0.2014 msec (  4960.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
  28000 reps @   0.2014 msec (  4960.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
  28000 reps @   0.2014 msec (  4970.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
  28000 reps @   0.2014 msec (  4970.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
 140000 trep @   0.2014 msec (  4970.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
That means that, for the 2d operation being tested here, the fglrx driver is over seven times slower than the X.org generic "radeon" driver!

I know that slow 2d is a known issue with fglrx but, as the subject of my post asks, is it really this bad? Is there anything I can do to speed up 2d with the fglrx driver while still retaining DRI?

Thanks for listening,
Jonathan

Specs are:

CPU: AMD AthlonXP-M 2600+ (Barton)
RAM: 1024 MB PDP SYSTEMS DDR400@2-3-2-11-1T
MOBO: Abit NF7-S Rev. 2.0 Nvidia Nforce2 Ultra-400 Chipset
GPU: Celestica Radeon 9800-Pro 128MB
Linux 2.4.29 (Slackware 10.0)
X11R6.8.1 (X.org source; home built; optimized for Athlon-XP)
ATI Video Driver fglrx_6_8_0-8.8.25
IceWM 1.2.14

Last edited by jpilotus : Feb 13, 2005 at 09:14 PM.
jpilotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2005, 05:21 AM   #2
skrionius
Sad Radeon Renegade
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hungary Hungary
Posts: 221
skrionius is still being judged by the masses


Default

Hmm. I have a similar HW, except 9600XT. I did not have to disable anything, rather enabling helped. Maybe you do not have XAA (2D acceleration) succesfuly shot up. You should look at xorg.log. (Maybe you have already done so, I am just guessing. )
__________________
SK - http://zaza.uw.hu/mrp/index.html http://jcrpg.blogspot.com
Abit NF7 (nforce2), 2500+ Barton, 1GB, 250G Hitachi HDD
ex-owner of an Asus R9600XT - fglrx 8.21.7 | radeon r300 Mesa CVS
Nvidia 8800GTS 320MB
gentoo linux (since 2003) kernel 2.6.22
skrionius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2005, 07:33 AM   #3
Albatorsk
HD4870
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 178
Albatorsk is still being judged by the masses


Default

Yup, it's slow. Unfortunately, it's so slow that UAE, which I happen to use, really suffers when using fglrx.

Code:
X.org 6.8.2 built in radeon driver:
   8000 reps @   0.6502 msec (  1540.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   8000 reps @   0.6511 msec (  1540.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   8000 reps @   0.6507 msec (  1540.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   8000 reps @   0.6504 msec (  1540.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   8000 reps @   0.6511 msec (  1540.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
  40000 trep @   0.6507 msec (  1540.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap

Xorg 6.8.2 with fglrx driver:
   1600 reps @   4.0022 msec (   250.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   1600 reps @   4.0028 msec (   250.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   1600 reps @   4.0444 msec (   247.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   1600 reps @   4.1877 msec (   239.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   1600 reps @   4.1855 msec (   239.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   8000 trep @   4.0845 msec (   245.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
This was benchmarked on a dual AthlonMP 1800+ and a Radeon 9600.
Albatorsk is offline   Reply With Quote
Advertisement (Guests Only)
Login or Register to remove this ad
Old Feb 14, 2005, 07:39 AM   #4
Albatorsk
HD4870
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 178
Albatorsk is still being judged by the masses


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skrionius
Hmm. I have a similar HW, except 9600XT. I did not have to disable anything, rather enabling helped. Maybe you do not have XAA (2D acceleration) succesfuly shot up. You should look at xorg.log. (Maybe you have already done so, I am just guessing. )
Perhaps we could see your results when running "x11perf -copypixpix500" with fglrx and the Xorg radeon driver?
Albatorsk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2005, 08:06 AM   #5
skrionius
Sad Radeon Renegade
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hungary Hungary
Posts: 221
skrionius is still being judged by the masses


Default

As soon as I get home I will try it (in about 4 hours). Maybe it is slower than Xorg stock radeon driver, I just did not compare it, because I found it usable, and no slow scrolling and such I have detected so far. Anyways, I am curious if it is slower or not, regardless the fact I didnt find it slow.
__________________
SK - http://zaza.uw.hu/mrp/index.html http://jcrpg.blogspot.com
Abit NF7 (nforce2), 2500+ Barton, 1GB, 250G Hitachi HDD
ex-owner of an Asus R9600XT - fglrx 8.21.7 | radeon r300 Mesa CVS
Nvidia 8800GTS 320MB
gentoo linux (since 2003) kernel 2.6.22
skrionius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2005, 11:28 AM   #6
jpilotus
Radeon HD 6670
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 40
jpilotus is still being judged by the masses


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albatorsk
Yup, it's slow. Unfortunately, it's so slow that UAE, which I happen to use, really suffers when using fglrx.

Code:
X.org 6.8.2 built in radeon driver:
   8000 reps @   0.6502 msec (  1540.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap

Xorg 6.8.2 with fglrx driver:
   1600 reps @   4.0022 msec (   250.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
This was benchmarked on a dual AthlonMP 1800+ and a Radeon 9600.
That's a little bit faster, relatively, than what I see on my system. (6x vs. 7x ratio).

I suppose I haven't come across any apps yet where it's actually debilitating. The scrolling thing in rxvt is more a visual annoyance than a real hindrance to usability. It's just that it's mighty frustrating to experience such dog-slow 2d performance on my fancy-dancy high-powered video card.

Thanks for the input, guys... waiting on those numbers, skrionius.
jpilotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2005, 04:22 PM   #7
Delkster
Radeon HD 6770
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Finland
Posts: 91
Delkster is still being judged by the masses


Default

Radeon 8500LE, XFree86 4.3 (Debian), Athlon XP 2600+.

fglrx:
Code:
Sync time adjustment is 0.0275 msecs.

   2400 reps @   2.1282 msec (   470.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   2400 reps @   2.1268 msec (   470.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   2400 reps @   2.1308 msec (   469.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   2400 reps @   2.1284 msec (   470.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   2400 reps @   2.1273 msec (   470.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
  12000 trep @   2.1283 msec (   470.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
radeon:
Code:
Sync time adjustment is 0.0387 msecs.

  12000 reps @   0.4667 msec (  2140.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
  12000 reps @   0.4668 msec (  2140.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
  12000 reps @   0.4667 msec (  2140.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
  12000 reps @   0.4668 msec (  2140.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
  12000 reps @   0.4670 msec (  2140.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
  60000 trep @   0.4668 msec (  2140.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
Just for reference.
Delkster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2005, 08:06 PM   #8
jpilotus
Radeon HD 6670
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 40
jpilotus is still being judged by the masses


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skrionius
Hmm. I have a similar HW, except 9600XT. I did not have to disable anything, rather enabling helped. Maybe you do not have XAA (2D acceleration) succesfuly shot up. You should look at xorg.log. (Maybe you have already done so, I am just guessing. )
Sorry... I meant to reply to this post this morning, and forgot. Xaa is enabled for the fglrx driver...

Code:
jnthn@:~$ grep -i xaa /var/log/Xorg.0.log
(II) Loading sub module "xaa"
(II) LoadModule: "xaa"
(II) Loading /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/libxaa.a
(II) Module xaa: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
(II) fglrx(0): Using XFree86 Acceleration Architecture (XAA)
/me shrugs

Jonathan
jpilotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2005, 09:48 PM   #9
lordvader
Radeon HD 6670
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 47
lordvader is still being judged by the masses


Default

I would jump in and say, even with dri disabled, 2d sucks.
Just try viewing some HDTV (1080i). The opensource drivers play it back beautifully, but ATI's drivers really struggle. Heck, they struggle with 576p !
lordvader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2005, 10:23 PM   #10
mooninite
Radeon HD 6970
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 673
mooninite is still being judged by the masses


Default

Please add notes to Bug #7.

http://ati.cchtml.com/show_bug.cgi?id=7
__________________
CAPS LOCK: ITS LIKE THE CRUISE CONTROL FOR AWESOME
mooninite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2005, 10:53 PM   #11
jpilotus
Radeon HD 6670
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 40
jpilotus is still being judged by the masses


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooninite
Please add notes to Bug #7.

http://ati.cchtml.com/show_bug.cgi?id=7
Done! Thanks for reminding me about the Bugzilla.
jpilotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2005, 02:56 AM   #12
skrionius
Sad Radeon Renegade
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hungary Hungary
Posts: 221
skrionius is still being judged by the masses


Default

OFF Yet I did not have the time to test it, I had to mess up with my kernel upgrading it to 2.6.11-rc4-ck1...sorry! I will make my mobile beeping for me to do the test
__________________
SK - http://zaza.uw.hu/mrp/index.html http://jcrpg.blogspot.com
Abit NF7 (nforce2), 2500+ Barton, 1GB, 250G Hitachi HDD
ex-owner of an Asus R9600XT - fglrx 8.21.7 | radeon r300 Mesa CVS
Nvidia 8800GTS 320MB
gentoo linux (since 2003) kernel 2.6.22
skrionius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2005, 07:18 AM   #13
JonSvenJonsson
Radeon HD 6970
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 581
JonSvenJonsson is still being judged by the masses


Default

fglrx-64 against r300 (radeon) 64bit:

fglrx-64
Code:
Sync time adjustment is 0.0293 msecs.

   3600 reps @   1.4791 msec (   676.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   3600 reps @   1.4787 msec (   676.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   3600 reps @   1.4894 msec (   671.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   3600 reps @   1.4788 msec (   676.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   3600 reps @   1.4865 msec (   673.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
  18000 trep @   1.4825 msec (   675.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
and r300/ radeon-64 :
Code:
Sync time adjustment is 0.0402 msecs.

  20000 reps @   0.3079 msec (  3250.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
  20000 reps @   0.3079 msec (  3250.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
  20000 reps @   0.3079 msec (  3250.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
  20000 reps @   0.3079 msec (  3250.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
  20000 reps @   0.3079 msec (  3250.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
 100000 trep @   0.3079 msec (  3250.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
Just for the record

cheers Jon
JonSvenJonsson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2005, 02:46 AM   #14
skrionius
Sad Radeon Renegade
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hungary Hungary
Posts: 221
skrionius is still being judged by the masses


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albatorsk
Yup, it's slow. Unfortunately, it's so slow that UAE, which I happen to use, really suffers when using fglrx.

Code:
Xorg 6.8.2 with fglrx driver:
   1600 reps @   4.0022 msec (   250.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   1600 reps @   4.0028 msec (   250.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   1600 reps @   4.0444 msec (   247.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   1600 reps @   4.1877 msec (   239.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   1600 reps @   4.1855 msec (   239.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
   8000 trep @   4.0845 msec (   245.0/sec): Copy 500x500 from pixmap to pixmap
This was benchmarked on a dual AthlonMP 1800+ and a Radeon 9600.
Measured: I have 2500+ Barton, and R9600XT, and I have ~450/sec values running the test. You got the worst values here, maybe there is some configuration problem too?
__________________
SK - http://zaza.uw.hu/mrp/index.html http://jcrpg.blogspot.com
Abit NF7 (nforce2), 2500+ Barton, 1GB, 250G Hitachi HDD
ex-owner of an Asus R9600XT - fglrx 8.21.7 | radeon r300 Mesa CVS
Nvidia 8800GTS 320MB
gentoo linux (since 2003) kernel 2.6.22
skrionius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2005, 03:53 AM   #15
JonSvenJonsson
Radeon HD 6970
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 581
JonSvenJonsson is still being judged by the masses


Default

I think it has something todo with memory-bandwith (not the cards but the main memory). I have an athlon64 with ddr400 ram and i get 676/sec with an radeon9600pro.

cheers Jon
JonSvenJonsson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2005, 06:58 AM   #16
Albatorsk
HD4870
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 178
Albatorsk is still being judged by the masses


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skrionius
Measured: I have 2500+ Barton, and R9600XT, and I have ~450/sec values running the test. You got the worst values here, maybe there is some configuration problem too?
But then again, everything in your system that can influence this test is faster than in mine. Faster videocard, faster memory, faster CPU.

Besides, I doesn't explain why the open source driver is 6x faster than fglrx on the same computer.
Albatorsk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2005, 07:06 AM   #17
JonSvenJonsson
Radeon HD 6970
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 581
JonSvenJonsson is still being judged by the masses


Default

Well because ati uses an old codebase for the 2D part ??? AFAIK the codebase is based on X-radeon 2D driver, so it would be interesting to see the radeon-driver from lets say XFree-4.2 or so.
cheers Jon
JonSvenJonsson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2005, 11:45 AM   #18
jpilotus
Radeon HD 6670
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 40
jpilotus is still being judged by the masses


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonSvenJonsson
Well because ati uses an old codebase for the 2D part ??? AFAIK the codebase is based on X-radeon 2D driver...
Is that really true? I don't know what the "X-Radeon" driver is... I presume you mean something developed for an ancient version of X.

/me waves at mtippett

It sure would be nice to have a response from one of the ATI guru developer types around here. Is the 2d code really some stone age relic? Is it being actively devoloped or, has it been pushed to the wayside to make room for its sexy big sister, OpenGL? I mean... 3d acceleration is nice... it's why I bought a 9800-pro in the first place. Speedy 2d performance is a necessity as well, don't you agree?
jpilotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2005, 03:14 PM   #19
mooninite
Radeon HD 6970
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 673
mooninite is still being judged by the masses


Default

If you guys could test run it on the new drivers and see if there are improvements it would be a big help.

-- Tested it on a similar system (P4 2.6, radeon 9700) and 8.10 nets the same results as the first poster. Oh well, we can hope for the future.
__________________
CAPS LOCK: ITS LIKE THE CRUISE CONTROL FOR AWESOME

Last edited by mooninite : Feb 16, 2005 at 04:55 PM.
mooninite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2005, 05:17 PM   #20
jpilotus
Radeon HD 6670
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 40
jpilotus is still being judged by the masses


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooninite
If you guys could test run it on the new drivers and see if there are improvements it would be a big help.

-- Tested it on a similar system (P4 2.6, radeon 9700) and 8.10 nets the same results as the first poster. Oh well, we can hope for the future.
Just got the new driver installed, and I now get 665.0/sec for an earth-shattering 0.09% increase.

Ah well. 3d seems to be shaping up quite well with this release. Maybe one day they'll have time to deal with 2d performance.
jpilotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tri monitor setup... Poor 2d acceleration, no video acceleration... ATI TV = garbage. Arin Radeon Technical Support 4 Mar 5, 2007 10:16 PM
No 3D Acceleration big-byrd Linux 5 Feb 28, 2004 05:08 PM
O' where has my acceleration gone!? elmerc Radeon Technical Support 7 Nov 13, 2002 10:55 PM
Why do we need 2D acceleration? lackyboofey General Radeon Discussion 3 Oct 4, 2002 01:21 PM
No DVD Acceleration ryanb18 Radeon Technical Support 8 Sep 14, 2002 09:15 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:20 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. Copyright ©1998-2011 Rage3D.com
Links monetized by VigLink