10-50% CPU used by xorg?

[Eric Anholt]

On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 09:19 +0100, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> 
> > EXA is bound to be slow on 965 until we land the render fixes (currently
> >  sitting on intel-batchbuffer, but we could probably just cherry-pick
> >  them out since they're orthogonal to the batchbuffer work).  But if
> >  you're seeing issues on 915 or earlier, the only improvement we're
> >  expecting to see is from TTM-backed buffers, which might help if you're
> >  limited by migration (or might not).
> 
> So does that mean GMA950 based chips will not benefit of the batchbuffer work?
> I got several different answers to this questions, some say "yes it
> will", others say "only 965".
> 
> It would be great if you could clearify this.

Yes, to clarify above: The expected result on pre-965 is just that it
will change performance for different workloads, some for better, some
for worse.  It's not like on 965 where we've got changes that are
speeding up everything you do with Render.  I can imagine both large
improvements for the "better" case and large losses for the "worse"
case.

-- 
Eric Anholt                             anholt at FreeBSD.org
eric at anholt.net                         eric.anholt at intel.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20080228/7004e6fc/attachment.pgp>