| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LoRd-niKon
n00b
Joined: 11 Sep 2003
Posts: 51
Location: Dortmund (ger)
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 11:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Option "NVAGP" "3" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blueworm
l33t
Joined: 09 May 2003
Posts: 962
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NvAGP "3" is the default
To use NvAGP you must NOT have AGPGART built into the kernel, and if it is
built as a module do not load it.
Then
This option is'nt really necessary since if you dont include it will assume the default value of "3"
Which is to probe for AGPGART and if not use NvAGP.
Dont take my word for it... Its in the README.
| Code: | | less /usr/share/doc/NVIDIA_GLX-1.0/README |
Its even in German... 
| Code: | | less /usr/share/doc/NVIDIA_GLX-1.0/README.DE |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LoRd-niKon
n00b
Joined: 11 Sep 2003
Posts: 51
Location: Dortmund (ger)
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
switched Option "NVAGP" to "1"
UT2004 Build UT2004_Build_[2004-02-10_03.01]
x86 Linux
AuthenticAMD PentiumPro-class processor @ 2080 MHz
GeForce4 MX Integrated GPU/PCI/SSE/3DNOW!
dm-rankin?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -nosound -seconds=77 -ini=default.ini -exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/botmatchexec.txt
10.539965 / 20.577856 / 128.265457 fps rand[1814308868]
Score = 20.574390
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH ;(
Just noticed agpgart is built as module and is started as i see in lsmod - just recompiling my kernel let's see |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LoRd-niKon
n00b
Joined: 11 Sep 2003
Posts: 51
Location: Dortmund (ger)
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
recompiled without agpgart
UT2004 Build UT2004_Build_[2004-02-10_03.01]
x86 Linux
AuthenticAMD PentiumPro-class processor @ 2080 MHz
GeForce4 MX Integrated GPU/AGP/SSE/3DNOW!
dm-rankin?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -nosound -seconds=77 -ini=default.ini -exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/botmatchexec.txt
8.040125 / 39.927734 / 149.737228 fps rand[1814308868]
Score = 39.838768
okay - it's the best result i got, but still not that fast. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rotonen
n00b
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 39
Location: Kotka, Finland
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
UT2004 Build UT2004_Build_[2004-02-10_03.01]
x86 Linux
AuthenticAMD PentiumPro-class processor @ 2015 MHz
GeForce4 Ti 4600/AGP/SSE/3DNOW!
dm-rankin?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchm$
9.581137 / 34.473282 / 90.870918 fps rand[1814308868]
Score = 34.476151
a gig of ddr266, 5336 drivers.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LoRd-niKon
n00b
Joined: 11 Sep 2003
Posts: 51
Location: Dortmund (ger)
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rotonen with that gfx-card your result should be much better, too - imho |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blueworm
l33t
Joined: 09 May 2003
Posts: 962
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loRd-niKon wrote: | | okay - it's the best result i got, but still not that fast. |
Dont expect to get too much more out of it.
Nvidia drivers 4363 would be faster as this is a low resolution test.
But that would almost be like cheating.
2.6 kernels are also faster but more noticable at higher resolutions and using AA & AF.
You should also expect an onboard vga to be slower than its add-in equivalent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LoRd-niKon
n00b
Joined: 11 Sep 2003
Posts: 51
Location: Dortmund (ger)
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Dont expect to get too much more out of it.
Nvidia drivers 4363 would be faster as this is a low resolution test.
But that would almost be like cheating.
2.6 kernels are also faster but more noticable at higher resolutions and using AA & AF.
You should also expect an onboard vga to be slower than its add-in equivalent. |
Yeah I know onboard isn't fastest solution, but it was pretty fast under windows and the sys reqs. for Ut 2004 are really nice so my sys should run it lovely.
I am going to emerge fluxbox, put it on 800x600 and have a look what it looks like on that wm. I'm running gnome @1280x1024 and that black frame sucks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stefanwa
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 09 Dec 2002
Posts: 140
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My results
| Quote: |
UT2004 Build UT2004_Build_[2004-02-10_03.01]
x86 Linux
AuthenticAMD PentiumPro-class processor @ 2205 MHz
Radeon 9600 Athlon (3DNow!)
dm-rankin?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=77 -ini=defau$
17.771280 / 61.505028 / 153.791168 fps rand[1814308868]
Score = 60.740692
|
I think that's fine... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kosan
n00b
Joined: 04 Jul 2002
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Amd64 3200+, 1gig 3200 Mushkin Ram, GeForce4 ti4600
34.756790 / 86.399940 / 180.789124 fps rand[737292312]
Score = 77.189011 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bemixam
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2002
Posts: 62
Location: France (Paris)
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
does somebody try to run this bench on linux AND window$ to see the difference ?
_________________
Gentoo c est bieng ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SpitBubbleBoy
n00b
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AMD 64 3000+ oc'ed (don't remember what, too lazy to look)
1 gig ram
FX 5900 Ultra
| Code: |
26.090925 / 79.388519 / 227.775146 fps -- Score = 72.787132 rand[1814308868]
|
oh and running x86... haven't gotten around to do a 64 bit install of anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zephyr1256
Apprentice
Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 170
Location: Kingsport, TN
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| zephyr1256 wrote: | 1.33 Ghz Athlon / GeForce ti 4200 / MSI K7T266 Pro2
7.084349 / 23.268814 / 80.412552 fps -- Score = 23.278854 rand[823438765]
I mention my MB because it's AGP bus is a piece of crap, it only supports 4x AGP and I can only run it at 2x AGP and I have to disable SBA and FW or I get random hard lockups(same with a previous AGP card).
From what I've seen here, my slow CPU probably doesn't help much either. |
Update. I've built a new box with a better mobo, cpu, and RAM.
Athlon XP 2800+ at 2012 Mhz / GeForce ti4200(same card) / Asus A7V600 / 1 GB PC3200 (Kingston Value Ram)
now the results are:
17.500523 / 53.092880 / 142.826538 fps -- Score = 52.756050 rand[823438765]
With the new mobo, my video card is using 8x AGP and FW. The processor speed and memory speed(old memory was PC 2100) could be having a major effect as well. I currently have not gotten stable at stock speeds on my processor; its running pretty hot and I think the ASUS C.O.P. is cutting power if it gets too hot(power just cuts off). This happens I think because I put too much thermal paste on the CPU die.
_________________
The Congress shall have power...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; --U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 8. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
himpierre
l33t
Joined: 31 Aug 2002
Posts: 867
Location: Berlin
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello
This benchmark should be more considered as a CPU Bench. But oh my god are these amd64 machines fast. AMD 2800XP gets a score around 50 and an amd64 3200 75? Thats impressive. That means an amd64 scores like a AMD 4200XP.
Thomas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Malakin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Apr 2002
Posts: 1692
Location: Victoria BC Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some WinXP vs Linux benchmarks.
XP2500+, nforce2 using dual-ddr (nothing oc)
Linux is vanilla 2.6.2 (no patches)/nvidia-kernel-1.0.5336-r1
sba is on, fast writes is not, nvagp, sblive, kernel alsa
WinXP is using nvidia 53.03.
48.8fps Linux/FX5200 (128bit non-ultra)/OGL
58.6fps Linux/FX5900XT/OGL
65.6fps Linux/FX5900XT/OGL NOSOUND
59.9fps WinXP/FX5900XT/OGL
65.3fps WinXP/FX5900XT/OGL NOSOUND
65.6fps WinXP/FX5900XT/D3D
69.6fps WinXP/FX5900XT/D3D NOSOUND
Comparing OGL with NOSOUND Linux on my machine is slightly faster then WinXP. With sound it's slightly slower but I'm sure that's just due to less time spent optimizing the sound for Linux.
The same system was used for the tests except in windows it would of been using Soundstorm audio instead of the sblive which Linux is using. This might be helping out WinXP somewhat since the cpu utilization on Soundstorm is very low (hurry up and come out with some freakin Linux drivers for it that don't suck already!)
The primary graphics api for ut2k is D3D so it's no surprise it's slightly faster with it. Why they waste resources writing for more then OGL is beyond me.
The mouse in Linux is _much_ smoother (again stock kernel, no patches), in Winxp you always get a jittery feel to it that makes it hard to aim unless you turn your sensitivity waaay down, this alone makes Linux more playable for me (using an mx500). Other then that I haven't noticed any obvious differences between WinXP/Linux. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stolz
Moderator
Joined: 19 Oct 2003
Posts: 3028
Location: Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2004 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
UT2004 Build UT2004_Build_[2004-02-10_03.01]
x86 Linux
AuthenticAMD PentiumPro-class processor @ 2276 MHz
GeForce4 Ti 4800 SE/AGP/SSE/3DNOW!
MB:Epox8RDA+
dm-rankin?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=77 -ini=default.ini -exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/botmatchexec.txt
21.605612 / 61.938732 / 178.419022 fps rand[1814308868]
Score = 60.841743 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mytheral
n00b
Joined: 28 Feb 2004
Posts: 44
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MALON3
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 16 Jan 2004
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dlpierce wrote: | I was getting this: | Code: | dm-rankin
9.071420 / 27.527071 / 70.510025 fps
Score = 27.535780 |
But after tweaking my ~/.openalrc: | Code: | (define speaker-num 2)
(define devices '(alsa))
(define alsa-out-device "hw:0,0")
(define alsa-in-device "hw:0,0") |
and replacing ut2004's stock openal.so and libSDL with gentoo compiled ones I get: | Code: | dm-rankin
15.914689 / 46.137897 / 126.360947 fps
Score = 45.962982 |
edit: using -nosound gives ~51 fps.
|
really nice tip! thxs a lot
went from :
17.603415 / 60.763020 / 166.798599 fps rand[1814308868]
Score = 59.720161
to:
24.089357 / 75.611671 / 209.791840 fps rand[1814308868]
Score = 70.570671
greetz malon3
edit:
I have noticed when i replaced the /ut2004/System/openal.so with the /usr/lib/libopenal.so.0.0.6 that i have no sound 
any known problems? i`ve forgot some important useflags for openal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elm0
Apprentice
Joined: 24 Nov 2002
Posts: 281
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2004 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've tried the .so tweaks and it certainly made UT2k4 playable on my aging PC (on ultra-low detail however). Parents won't buy me a new PC till after exams... Hard life 
Anyway, MALON3, my openal.so is seemingly version 0.0.7 - I've linked openal.so in the System/ directory to /usr/lib/libopenal.so so it keeps up to date with any openal updates through the symlink system. I emerged the latest ~x86 version of openal, probably will make a difference.
I also linked System/libSDL.so to /usr/lib/libSDL.so which is the ~x86 version of libSDL, reportedly has various fixes for ALSA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flyingbird
n00b
Joined: 31 Aug 2003
Posts: 18
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2004 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Code: |
UT2004 Build UT2004_Build_[2004-02-10_03.01]
x86 Linux
AuthenticAMD PentiumPro-class processor @ 1734 MHz
GeForce FX 5900/AGP/SSE/3DNOW!
dm-rankin?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=77 -ini=default.ini -exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/botmatchexec.txt
10.624740 / 41.029217 / 115.695923 fps rand[1814308868]
Score = 40.961269
|
newly compiled openal and libSDL being used. /dev/agpgart in kernel disabled. 2.6.4 mm sources. abit-kr7a w/ 512 ram. this game runs at very high framerates at very high resolution and detail in winxp.
any ideas on how to get gentoo running it better? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Malakin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Apr 2002
Posts: 1692
Location: Victoria BC Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2004 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | this game runs at very high framerates at very high resolution and detail in winxp. |
Have you tried the benchmark in windows? If you look at my previous post I had fairly similar results in both OS's so if someone is getting far worse performance in either one and they're using an nvidia card then there's probably something they can do to fix it (not sure about ati). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flyingbird
n00b
Joined: 31 Aug 2003
Posts: 18
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
haven't done the actual benchmark in windows but i can tell it is far worse in gentoo just by actual play. and benchmark doesnt really matter i want to be able to play the game in gentoo reasonably.
i noticed with rivatv that it mentioned something about not having agp:
| Code: |
rivatv: nVidia card found - rivatv0
rivatv: It is impossible to identify your board uniquely, sorry
rivatv: PCI identifiers: 10DE 0331 0000 0000
rivatv: Attempting to load most common decoder (SAA7108E)
rivatv: MTRR successfully enabled
rivatv: PCI nVidia NV30 card detected (GeForce FX 5900 [0x331], 128MB @ 0xE0000000)
rivatv: I2C adapter driver for NVIDIA cards
rivatv: procfs file registered for rivatv0
rivatv: allocated YUV capture buffer (812 kb)
rivatv: AGPGART: not available
rivatv: AGP: disabled
rivatv: Hash table layout: 16kB (11 bits) @ 0xEC710000
rivatv: NVdriver (nvidia) detected, DMA not supported
rivatv: successfully requested IRQ 11
rivatv: Video4Linux device driver registered
|
perhaps my card isnt even operating in AGP mode, i have the NVAGP option set as 1 ...
any ideas would be appreciated, thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Malakin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Apr 2002
Posts: 1692
Location: Victoria BC Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
This should tell you if your agp is working:
cat /proc/driver/nvidia/agp/status |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CDLM
Apprentice
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 179
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Code: | UT2004 Build UT2004_Build_[2004-02-10_03.01]
x86 Linux
GenuineIntel Unknown processor @ 2405 MHz
GeForce4 Ti 4200 with AGP8X/AGP/SSE2
dm-rankin?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=77 -ini=default.ini -exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/botmatchexec.txt
17.269060 / 59.872692 / 168.221390 fps rand[1814308868]
Score = 58.775150 |
Shuttle SB65G2 P4 2.4GHz 512MB DDR-400
- Dave -
Edit: looks like perry and the x86-64's are the only ones beating me (perry at 59, the 64's at ~70) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MALON3
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 16 Jan 2004
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Elm0 wrote: | I've tried the .so tweaks and it certainly made UT2k4 playable on my aging PC (on ultra-low detail however). Parents won't buy me a new PC till after exams... Hard life
Anyway, MALON3, my openal.so is seemingly version 0.0.7 - I've linked openal.so in the System/ directory to /usr/lib/libopenal.so so it keeps up to date with any openal updates through the symlink system. I emerged the latest ~x86 version of openal, probably will make a difference.
I also linked System/libSDL.so to /usr/lib/libSDL.so which is the ~x86 version of libSDL, reportedly has various fixes for ALSA. |
hi
elmo now i have merged the ~x86 version of openal and it works 
thx for ur tip
greetz malon3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Gamers & Players
