Xglx (partial) success story

[Michel Dänzer]

On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 22:13 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Saturday 12 March 2005 21:20, Francesco Biscani wrote:
> > I'm asking: is the IGP much slower because of the lack of pbuffer support
> > or for some other reason? Or because the hw acceleration is not so good as
> > ATI's binary drivers'?
> 
> IGP chipsets don't have their own VRAM and have to use system RAM for 
> everything, IIRC.  So you're bound to the system bus bandwidth, which is not 
> nearly as high as it is on a real card.

The free drivers don't work well for me with discrete cards either, I
suspect it's due to stuff like inefficient glTexSubImage, missing
acceleration for glCopyPixels/glCopyTex(Sub)Image, ...


On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 22:03 -0500, Jon Smirl wrote: 
> It is probably becuase of lack of pbuffers in DRI. 

As is being discussed on this very list, Xglx doesn't use pbuffers with
fglrx either, and only uses them for additional offscreen cache anyway.

> The ATI binary driver should work on the IGP machine, you could give 
> it a try and tell us how it compares.

It doesn't support 3D on IGPs yet.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer      |     Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer
Libre software enthusiast    |   http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer