glxgears now builtin

libGLU.so*, glxgears
The Wary 098 and Quirky 1.4 builds are almost openGL-ready. Well, they are, but in the case of 'glxgears' all they need extra is the libGLU.so* library.

So, I have decided to include libGLU.so* in the build. The applications 'glxgears' and 'glxinfo' also.

This means that glxgears will run "out of the box", but only with software rendering.

Speed test
These results are weird. I have a pristine Quirky/Wary, installed libGLU.so* and glxgears. Testing on my laptop:

'vesa' X driver: 550 FPS (frames per second)
'intel' X driver: 230 FPS


Then I install i915_dri.so, which is in the mesa package and provides hardware acceleration for openGL:

'vesa' X driver: 555 FPS
'intel' X driver: 860 FPS


In other words, the 'intel' X driver is hopeless with openGL software rendering, and it really does need the DRI (mesa) package installed. 'vesa', which is an unaccelerated generic X driver for all video hardware, performs surprisingly well.

...kind of makes me wonder whether Wary could get away with having 'vesa' only. Eliminate all the other drivers, sure would simplify things.

Video Upgrade Wizard
I have fixed the Video Upgrade Wizard -- it had a message that you needed to install the 'mesa' (DRI) package first, before installing the Intel Xorg upgrade package, however that is not so. The Intel upgrade package in fact has an upgraded mesa/dri in it (version 7.8.2, versus 6.5.2 builtin to Wary).
What was missing was 'glxgears' to test it, but that is now going to be built-in.


Posted on 29 Nov 2010, 14:56


Comments:

Posted on 29 Nov 2010, 16:44 by DaveS
Xvesa
I used xvesa for a while in Q13, and it does indeed render much quicker and smoother on my (Intel) laptop. The problem is, it screws up the touchpad operation. Flsynclient cannot be used to correct it as it is not compatible.
If these issues could be figured, then xvesa only might well be a great option, and presumably way smaller.....


Posted on 29 Nov 2010, 17:12 by BarryK
Re Xvesa
Xvesa really is a last resort. It just has too many limitations. It is a pity that it is a dead project.



Posted on 29 Nov 2010, 17:18 by Sage
Dead project, obsolete HW
Sorry if it's stating the obvious, but this one jumped up and bit me in the bum.
Reduced-fat Wary, designed for old kit, deserves VESA-only, especially if it can drop/be dropped below the 100Mb .iso.
Perhaps, then, the Welcome page can tell the whingers with 4-cores to bog off?!


Posted on 29 Nov 2010, 18:07 by BarryK
My laptop
I was just looking at some FPS results posted on the forum for Luci, surprised how low they are.

My laptop is very modest, just a 1.5GHz Celeron CPU, 512MB RAM, Intel Mobile 945GM/GMS 943/940GML Express Integrated Graphics Controller.

At the other extreme, I see Billtoo posting incredible FPS figures testing Quirky 1.4 with nVidia X driver, up around 10,000 FPS:

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=62359



Posted on 29 Nov 2010, 18:09 by Iguleder
A PET
Barry, I think the GPU is so weak in the hardware Wary is targeted at that software rendering (rendering done by the CPU) is faster than GPU rendering, because the CPU is faster than the GPU.

Also, consider the fact that the GPU isn't supposed to make rendering faster, it's supposed to reduce the CPU load and make things smoother. In more modern computers, the GPU processor is actually faster than the CPU (in most cases), that's why applications like Photoshop use it instead of the CPU to accelerate themselves - but that's not the case with old hardware.

VESA is a good fallback, but those who already have a serious GPU (with cooling, a fan, whatever, a GPU that actually accelerates as the name implies) could use an extra PET or SFS, like the Xorg_High in Lupu. After all, Wary is not targeted at such machines.

2c


Posted on 29 Nov 2010, 19:38 by Sage
"...just a 1.5GHz Celeron CPU..."
No friend of bullyboy Intel, but is this a CeleryM, which is a lot faster than the bog std. device? Still missing the cache, though.
Perhaps this is a better testbed for Wary, anyway?


Posted on 4 Dec 2010, 15:30 by scsijon
vesa+
um, on Most of my boxes use the onboard video and intel drivers (i915 is favored)and xvesa runs.
I wonder if it's because these boxes are sharing the ordinary system ram (at that ram's speed) that their showing slow.
the only one with it's own video card is an old ati mb without onboard video and that has a ati card which needs the ati driver to run properly but it will work with xvesa.

personally I do like the idea of a standard default config (xvesa) with an auto-probe at startup and sugestion /simple install step for improvement.


Posted on 4 Dec 2010, 16:52 by BarryK
Re vesa
scsijon,
You do understand that 'vesa' and 'Xvesa' are two different drivers?