| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kamikaze04
Guru
Joined: 28 Mar 2004
Posts: 366
Location: Valencia-Spain
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 2:49 pm Post subject: [xorg,nvidia] Nvidia + FX5200 (moved to kernel & hard fo |
 |
|
Hello,
I've just tried using nvidia driver on my gentoo-amd64 box. I'm using NVIDIA FX5200..
i'm worried because (although i know my card is bad) i only get this results when i run glxgears:
| Code: |
apolo ~ # glxgears
4495 frames in 5.0 seconds = 899.000 FPS
4559 frames in 5.0 seconds = 911.800 FPS
4559 frames in 5.0 seconds = 911.800 FPS
|
I think i could get more from my card.
I give us all the info i have:
| Code: |
apolo ~ # cat /proc/driver/nvidia/agp/status
Status: Enabled
Driver: AGPGART
AGP Rate: 8x
Fast Writes: Enabled
SBA: Enabled
apolo ~ # cat /proc/driver/nvidia/agp/card
Fast Writes: Supported
SBA: Supported
AGP Rates: 8x 4x
Registers: 0x1f000e1b:0x1f000312
|
| Code: |
apolo ~ # glxinfo | grep direct
direct rendering: Yes
|
| Code: |
apolo ~ # more /etc/modules.d/nvidia
alias char-major-195 nvidia
alias /dev/nvidiactl char-major-195
options nvidia NVreg_EnableAGPSBA=1 NVreg_EnableAGPFW=1
|
And the versions of nvidia-glx and nvidia-kernel are:
media-video/nvidia-glx-1.0.6111
media-video/nvidia-kernel-1.0.6111-r3
media-video/nvidia-settings-1.0.6111
And my /etc/X11/xorg.conf is here
www.gtel.upv.es/~kamikaze/xorg.conf
My kernel configuration has enabled:
| Code: |
<*> /dev/agpgart (AGP Support)
<*> AMD Opteron/Athlon64 on-CPU GART support
|
I think this is all the information i can give us.
If you know how to change my settings to improve my performance i would be very pleased.
[/code]
Last edited by kamikaze04 on Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
noup
l33t
Joined: 21 Mar 2003
Posts: 917
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i can't help you much on this, except for confirming that perhaps your card ir really making some bad results.
i have a bad card - nvidia geforce4 mx440 - and here are my outputs:
| Code: |
# glxgears
7071 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1414.200 FPS
7339 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1467.800 FPS
6825 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1365.000 FPS
7200 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1440.000 FPS
7076 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1415.200 FPS
|
| Code: |
# cat /proc/driver/nvidia/agp/status
Status: Enabled
Driver: AGPGART
AGP Rate: 4x
Fast Writes: Disabled
SBA: Disabled
|
| Code: |
# cat /proc/driver/nvidia/agp/card
Fast Writes: Supported
SBA: Not Supported
AGP Rates: 4x 2x 1x
Registers: 0x1f000017:0x1f000104
|
so, mine is only a 4x agp card, and i don't have those module options enabled.
_________________
noup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mythos
l33t
Joined: 02 May 2004
Posts: 953
Location: Portugal
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well it can be no problem at all;
run enemy-territory (800x600)
if your results are between 20 and 40 most of the time, it's good less then 20 is bad result
glxgears and result's are directly connect to windows size of your glxgears terminal or your resolution.
If you decreese your glxgears terminal size window, you will see that your results get some major improvements.
The best way to test opengl configuration is run a game.
Run Enemy-Territory for example, and if most the time your card have 20 fps or 40 fps it's "good(for your model of course)"
_________________
Best Regards,
Sérgio Henrique
Linux dune 3.0.6-gentoo #1 SMP Thu Oct 27 16:47:29 WEST 2011 x86_64 Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7500 @ 2.20GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
o5gmmob8
Guru
Joined: 17 Oct 2003
Posts: 465
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:57 am Post subject: AMD64 and nvidia 5200 fx |
|
|
Hi,
I am getting similar results (on AMD64, 5200FX), I know that my old 440MX was getting better results, but this card should be better as it has more ram and newer specs...
I am also running xinerama, dual head system, but that shouldn't create any problems.
Oh, I should also add that when I exit X11 and go back into console mode, my monitor reports a bad sync of 0/172 Hz. I have never had issues like this before. Does anyone have any ideas as to why starting X11 then exiting it screws up my sync? Console mode works fine if I don't startx.
Walter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kamikaze04
Guru
Joined: 28 Mar 2004
Posts: 366
Location: Valencia-Spain
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've noticed the same problem with the sync when i turn on X. I see fine my XWindows 800x600@85Hz, but when i try to jump to a console it is like corrupted, totally unreadeable, and my monitor sayis it works at 72Hz.
I solved that issue when i tried the 0x303 configuration for my framebuffer (800x600 with 256 colors), with that configuration on consoles and 800x600 in Xwindows there is no curruption at all.
Any one has noticed this?
(( I think it is not an issue of AMD64, because it happened the same with my old celeron)) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kamikaze04
Guru
Joined: 28 Mar 2004
Posts: 366
Location: Valencia-Spain
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maybe this problem is not only for AMD64 users, so i "close" this trhread and re-open it on "kernel & hardware forum" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
o5gmmob8
Guru
Joined: 17 Oct 2003
Posts: 465
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:05 pm Post subject: 5200 fx problems |
|
|
Hi,
Dumb question, how come I cannot compile in agpgart support like you had? I don't have that option. I am running gentoo-dev-sources 2.6.9 r1 and r9. I thought nvidia had always wanted to use its own agp controller thing, not the builtin, but I don't have that option strangely enough.
Walter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
noup
l33t
Joined: 21 Mar 2003
Posts: 917
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:24 pm Post subject: Re: 5200 fx problems |
|
|
| walterw wrote: | Hi,
Dumb question, how come I cannot compile in agpgart support like you had? I don't have that option. I am running gentoo-dev-sources 2.6.9 r1 and r9. I thought nvidia had always wanted to use its own agp controller thing, not the builtin, but I don't have that option strangely enough.
Walter |
Device Drivers -> Character devices -> /dev/agpgart (AGP Support) 
_________________
noup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
o5gmmob8
Guru
Joined: 17 Oct 2003
Posts: 465
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi,
Yeah, that is where I looked for it, but I get ---, I don't know what that means, if it is built-in or what. Since I have a dual monitor setup, I have both cards setup in the kernel. My primary is nvidia, and my secondary is ati radeon 7500. When I boot up, agpgart detects everything like it should:
| Code: |
agpgart: Detected AGP bridge 0
agpgart: Maximum main memory to use for agp memory: 439M
agpgart: AGP aperture is 128M @ 0xe0000000
Linux agpgart interface v0.100 (c) Dave Jones
agpgart: Found an AGP 3.0 compliant device at 0000:00:00.0.
agpgart: Putting AGP V3 device at 0000:00:00.0 into 8x mode
agpgart: Putting AGP V3 device at 0000:01:00.0 into 8x mode
agpgart: Found an AGP 3.0 compliant device at 0000:00:00.0.
agpgart: Putting AGP V3 device at 0000:00:00.0 into 8x mode
agpgart: Putting AGP V3 device at 0000:01:00.0 into 8x mode
agpgart: Found an AGP 3.0 compliant device at 0000:00:00.0.
agpgart: Putting AGP V3 device at 0000:00:00.0 into 8x mode
agpgart: Putting AGP V3 device at 0000:01:00.0 into 8x mode
agpgart: Found an AGP 3.0 compliant device at 0000:00:00.0.
agpgart: Putting AGP V3 device at 0000:00:00.0 into 8x mode
agpgart: Putting AGP V3 device at 0000:01:00.0 into 8x mode
agpgart: Found an AGP 3.0 compliant device at 0000:00:00.0.
agpgart: Putting AGP V3 device at 0000:00:00.0 into 8x mode
agpgart: Putting AGP V3 device at 0000:01:00.0 into 8x mode
agpgart: Found an AGP 3.0 compliant device at 0000:00:00.0.
agpgart: Putting AGP V3 device at 0000:00:00.0 into 8x mode
agpgart: Putting AGP V3 device at 0000:01:00.0 into 8x mode
|
Kernel configuration.
| Code: |
--- /dev/agpgart (AGP Support) ? ?
? ?< > Intel i865 chipset support ? ?
? ?[*] Direct Rendering Manager (XFree86 4.1.0 and higher DRI support) ? ?
? ?< > 3dfx Banshee/Voodoo3+ ? ?
? ?< > ATI Rage 128 ? ?
? ?<*> ATI Radeon ? ?
? ?< > SiS video cards ? ?
? ?< > ACP Modem (Mwave) support ? ?
? ?<M> RAW driver (/dev/raw/rawN) (OBSOLETE)
|
I know in other versions that it was an option, but it looks like it is automatically built with it, maybe because I selected AMD 64/Opterton optimizations?
Walter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
noup
l33t
Joined: 21 Mar 2003
Posts: 917
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ok, i see...
well yes, i'm pretty sure that if --- appears to you, then it is always built. those --- things appear related to other selections, so perhaps it is related to the "AMD optimizations" one you mentioned. 
_________________
noup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
o5gmmob8
Guru
Joined: 17 Oct 2003
Posts: 465
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 2:41 pm Post subject: related error? |
|
|
Hi,
I have been having problems with building a new kernel (wanted to remove features that I don't have, and add in Raid0 support), but cannot recompile both the old source that I am currently running (release 1), and the new gentoo-dev-sources-2.6.9-r9. Both genkernel and make fail when attempting to build the kernel. Do you think these are related?
Root device is (3, 2)
Boot sector 512 bytes.
Setup is 4717 bytes.
System is 7301 kB
System is too big. Try using modules.
make[1]: *** [arch/x86_64/boot/bzImage] Error 1
make: *** [bzImage] Error 2
Walter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
noup
l33t
Joined: 21 Mar 2003
Posts: 917
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well, 7301kB for your kernel image is quite a bit (mine is 2159kB). are you sure you did all the kernel steps correctly? to compile your gentoo-dev-sources-2.6.9-r9 (manually), after emerging the package make sure you have /usr/src/linux pointing to /usr/src/linux-2.6.9-gentoo-r9.
then, go into /usr/src/linux and
| Code: |
#make clean
#make menuconfig
(select the things you want)
#make && make modules_install
#cp arch/i386/boot/bzImage /boot/your_kernel_filename
|
and reboot.
if you get the same error, perhaps you should do exactly what it sais, try selecting some things are modules instead of directly built into the kernel (use M instead of Y).
hope this helps.
_________________
noup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Corona688
Veteran
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 1204
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
An FX5200? That's the problem, I think. I've never heard of anyone getting decent performance with those under linux, and they're kind of iffy under windows as well. Go back and exchange it for something else if you can.
I've been fighting to get linux amd64 to work properly with my FX5200 for maybye a year now, but I've pretty much given up. Other people with non-FX5200 nVidia cards were getting decent performance, my old GeForce3 got decent performance(albeit bad stability), but the FX5200? Total shit performance, total shit stability, total shit support from nvidia. I bumped a thread on the nvidia forums for 3 months without any response from nvidia until a moderator told me to stop.
I'd hoped the problems had gone away with the new drivers, but apparently not. The only conclusion I've been able to draw is the FX5200 really, really, really sucks. I get far better performance with a cheap-ass Radeon7500 on the open source drivers.
_________________
Petition for Better 64-bit ATI Drivers - Sign Here
http://www.petitiononline.com/atipet/petition.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
noup
l33t
Joined: 21 Mar 2003
Posts: 917
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Corona688 wrote: | An FX5200? That's the problem, I think. I've never heard of anyone getting decent performance with those under linux, and they're kind of iffy under windows as well. Go back and exchange it for something else if you can.
I've been fighting to get linux amd64 to work properly with my FX5200 for maybye a year now, but I've pretty much given up. Other people with non-FX5200 nVidia cards were getting decent performance, my old GeForce3 got decent performance(albeit bad stability), but the FX5200? Total shit performance, total shit stability, total shit support from nvidia. I bumped a thread on the nvidia forums for 3 months without any response from nvidia until a moderator told me to stop.
I'd hoped the problems had gone away with the new drivers, but apparently not. The only conclusion I've been able to draw is the FX5200 really, really, really sucks. I get far better performance with a cheap-ass Radeon7500 on the open source drivers. |
as you seem to be more into the graphics card thing than i am, how is that FX5200 compared to my geforce4 mx440 4xAgp in terms of performance? and in terms of support in linux, what would be a good nvidia card?
_________________
noup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lavish
Bodhisattva
Joined: 13 Sep 2004
Posts: 4296
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Code: | lavish@darkstar ~ $ glxgears
4287 frames in 5.0 seconds = 857.400 FPS
4525 frames in 5.0 seconds = 905.000 FPS |
Yes... it seems to go slow, but I can run ut2004 @ 1024x768 with full effects very smooth.
Nwn works great too! U have to test it on real games, not on stupid benchmarks like glxgears. I just can say that I'm happy with my 5200, really
_________________
minimalblue.com | secgroup.github.io/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Corona688
Veteran
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 1204
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| noup wrote: | | as you seem to be more into the graphics card thing than i am, how is that FX5200 compared to my geforce4 mx440 4xAgp in terms of performance? and in terms of support in linux, what would be a good nvidia card? |
Actually, now that I think of it, my old card WAS a geforce4mx, not a geforce3. They're an older card, so nvidia's had more time to get them to work; If nvidia's fixed the stability problems they seemed to have with all cards, it should get good performance. Not close to what an FX5200 could get, theoretically, but I'd think you'd be much happier with the geforce4mx.
That was the most fruistrating thing about the FX5200 for me. I could see that it had the potential to get great performance. I was getting somewhere between 4K and 5K FPS in glxgears, but I have absolutely no idea where 3995 of those 4000 frames went -- it's like the video was staying in the buffers and not blitting to the screen. The video was also extremely jerky, with pronounced pauses every second or so, always getting worse. Add on the niggling little detail that any use of opengl whatsoever ground Xfree to a screeching, painful halt(5 minutes to switch windows! 10 minutes of clicking on the X to get the opengl thing to close!) and it just wasn't worth it. (Yup, xfree. This was earlier this year, xfree wasn't depreciated yet)
It's also worth noting that some of these symptoms may be specific to dual-processor machines. Plenty of people have had bad performance with FX5200's, but full-blown histrionics like I experienced are less common.
_________________
Petition for Better 64-bit ATI Drivers - Sign Here
http://www.petitiononline.com/atipet/petition.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
noup
l33t
Joined: 21 Mar 2003
Posts: 917
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Corona688 wrote: | Actually, now that I think of it, my old card WAS a geforce4mx, not a geforce3. They're an older card, so nvidia's had more time to get them to work; If nvidia's fixed the stability problems they seemed to have with all cards, it should get good performance. Not close to what an FX5200 could get, theoretically, but I'd think you'd be much happier with the geforce4mx.
That was the most fruistrating thing about the FX5200 for me. I could see that it had the potential to get great performance. I was getting somewhere between 4K and 5K FPS in glxgears, but I have absolutely no idea where 3995 of those 4000 frames went -- it's like the video was staying in the buffers and not blitting to the screen. The video was also extremely jerky, with pronounced pauses every second or so, always getting worse. Add on the niggling little detail that any use of opengl whatsoever ground Xfree to a screeching, painful halt(5 minutes to switch windows! 10 minutes of clicking on the X to get the opengl thing to close!) and it just wasn't worth it. (Yup, xfree. This was earlier this year, xfree wasn't depreciated yet)
It's also worth noting that some of these symptoms may be specific to dual-processor machines. Plenty of people have had bad performance with FX5200's, but full-blown histrionics like I experienced are less common. |
ok, so if i got it right, the problem is with the drivers, not with the cards. nvidia is lazzy in what comes to drivers for linux. so, is an ati card a better choice?
thank you for your answers.
_________________
noup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo on AMD64
