very slow performance of glxgears (68 fps)
johnflux at gmail.com
Wed Feb 18 07:06:59 PST 2009
2009/2/18 Corbin Simpson <mostawesomedude at gmail.com>:
> John Tapsell wrote:
>> 2009/2/18 Matthias Hopf <mhopf at suse.de>:
>>> On Feb 06, 09 01:56:19 +0000, John Tapsell wrote:
>>>>>>> glxgears is not a benchmark.
>>>>> At openSUSE we print out a warning now (well, this change went into
>>>>> *after* 11.1, unfortunately), that this is not a benchmark. We got really
>>>>> tired of these statements.
>>>> Except that it _is_ a benchmark. Or rather waas before the change.
>>> No, it never was.
>>>> If for example, without vsync, a user gets just 100fps on their new
>>>> nvidia card, then that is clearly showing that something is wrong.
>>> So it is a validation tool, but not a benchmark.
>>> A benchmark - by definition - gives you performance figures that can be
>>> compared with other systems, which gives you a reasonable notion of
>>> which of the systems is better.
>> Right. If one system gets 100fps and another gets 1,000fps, then you
>> compare the two systems and say that one is better than the other.
>> All you are saying is that it's not an accurate comparison if the
>> numbers are close.
> A benchmark also measures specific hardware performance and tests
> optional features. glxgears only tests clear speed and the rate at which
> a modest-sized vertex buffer can be rendered. A useful sanity test, but
> nothing more.
Well whatever we call, it's no longer useful for sanity checking if
it's limited to 60fps :-)
More information about the xorg