Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: mir performance with glxgears and other info

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Beta Testing in Canada
    Beans
    6,622
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    mir performance with glxgears and other info

    Just testing unity-system-co performance.

    with-mir

    Code:
    ventrical@ventrical-desktop:~$ glxgears
    Running synchronized to the vertical refresh.  The framerate should be
    approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate.
    2753 frames in 5.0 seconds = 550.537 FPS
    2745 frames in 5.0 seconds = 548.931 FPS
    2727 frames in 5.0 seconds = 545.074 FPS
    2715 frames in 5.0 seconds = 542.526 FPS
    2732 frames in 5.0 seconds = 546.348 FPS
    2706 frames in 5.0 seconds = 540.632 FPS
    2750 frames in 5.0 seconds = 549.898 FPS
    2731 frames in 5.0 seconds = 545.880 FPS
    2729 frames in 5.0 seconds = 545.703 FPS
    2669 frames in 5.0 seconds = 533.750 FPS
    2651 frames in 5.0 seconds = 529.565 FPS
    with-xorg

    Code:
    ventrical@ventrical-desktop:~$ glxgears
    Running synchronized to the vertical refresh.  The framerate should be
    approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate.
    259 frames in 5.0 seconds = 51.742 FPS
    246 frames in 5.0 seconds = 49.108 FPS
    250 frames in 5.0 seconds = 49.717 FPS
    261 frames in 5.0 seconds = 52.103 FPS
    248 frames in 5.0 seconds = 49.179 FPS
    247 frames in 5.0 seconds = 48.981 FPS
    250 frames in 5.0 seconds = 49.908 FPS
    249 frames in 5.0 seconds = 49.375 FPS
    246 frames in 5.0 seconds = 49.108 FPS
    246 frames in 5.0 seconds = 49.106 FPS
    248 frames in 5.0 seconds = 49.504 FPS
    Code:
    ventrical@ventrical-desktop:~$ lspci
    00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation 82Q963/Q965 Memory Controller Hub (rev 02)
    00:01.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82Q963/Q965 PCI Express Root Port (rev 02)
    00:03.0 Communication controller: Intel Corporation 82Q963/Q965 HECI Controller (rev 02)
    00:19.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82566DM Gigabit Network Connection (rev 02)
    00:1a.0 USB controller: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) USB UHCI Controller #4 (rev 02)
    00:1a.1 USB controller: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) USB UHCI Controller #5 (rev 02)
    00:1a.7 USB controller: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) USB2 EHCI Controller #2 (rev 02)
    00:1b.0 Audio device: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) HD Audio Controller (rev 02)
    00:1c.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) PCI Express Port 1 (rev 02)
    00:1c.1 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) PCI Express Port 2 (rev 02)
    00:1c.2 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) PCI Express Port 3 (rev 02)
    00:1c.3 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) PCI Express Port 4 (rev 02)
    00:1c.4 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) PCI Express Port 5 (rev 02)
    00:1d.0 USB controller: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) USB UHCI Controller #1 (rev 02)
    00:1d.1 USB controller: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) USB UHCI Controller #2 (rev 02)
    00:1d.2 USB controller: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) USB UHCI Controller #3 (rev 02)
    00:1d.7 USB controller: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) USB2 EHCI Controller #1 (rev 02)
    00:1e.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801 PCI Bridge (rev f2)
    00:1f.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation 82801HO (ICH8DO) LPC Interface Controller (rev 02)
    00:1f.2 IDE interface: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) 4 port SATA Controller [IDE mode] (rev 02)
    00:1f.3 SMBus: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) SMBus Controller (rev 02)
    00:1f.5 IDE interface: Intel Corporation 82801HR/HO/HH (ICH8R/DO/DH) 2 port SATA Controller [IDE mode] (rev 02)
    01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: NVIDIA Corporation GT218 [GeForce 210] (rev a2)
    01:00.1 Audio device: NVIDIA Corporation High Definition Audio Controller (rev a1)
    03:00.0 IDE interface: Marvell Technology Group Ltd. 88SE6101/6102 single-port PATA133 interface (rev b1)
    07:03.0 FireWire (IEEE 1394): Texas Instruments TSB43AB22A IEEE-1394a-2000 Controller (PHY/Link) [iOHCI-Lynx]
    ventrical@ventrical-desktop:~$
    Code:
    ventrical@ventrical-desktop:~$ lsb_release -a
    No LSB modules are available.
    Distributor ID:    Ubuntu
    Description:    Ubuntu Utopic Unicorn (development branch)
    Release:    14.10
    Codename:    utopic
    ventrical@ventrical-desktop:~$
    Last edited by ventrical; May 21st, 2014 at 04:35 PM.
    This is Rolling Release
    Warnings for New Beta Testers& Helpful Terminal Commands:
    Running W. Werewolf /dev/@ 4.05GHz64bit/ onE8400 Core2Duo-Wolfdale+Howler

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    London, England
    Beans
    8,284
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: mir performance with glxgears

    @ventrical, if you do not mind me saying so, there is something very wrong with the results for with-mir. This is what I get with xserver.

    graham@Sdb8-Roll-Dev:~$ glxgears
    Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be
    approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate.
    270 frames in 5.0 seconds = 53.764 FPS
    265 frames in 5.0 seconds = 52.990 FPS
    248 frames in 5.0 seconds = 49.566 FPS
    250 frames in 5.0 seconds = 49.991 FPS
    248 frames in 5.0 seconds = 49.412 FPS
    249 frames in 5.0 seconds = 49.524 FPS
    249 frames in 5.0 seconds = 49.609 FPS
    249 frames in 5.0 seconds = 49.608 FPS
    248 frames in 5.0 seconds = 49.599 FPS
    249 frames in 5.0 seconds = 49.758 FPS
    251 frames in 5.0 seconds = 50.198 FPS
    252 frames in 5.0 seconds = 50.330 FPS
    I am not running xmir so I cannot compare but it sure cannot speed things up by more than 10 times. My guess is that mesa-utils is not compatible with mir. I found this the other day. It is old but somewhere there might be something that points to a better method of testing performance.

    http://samohtv.wordpress.com/

    glmark2 is in the trusty/utopic software centre.

    https://launchpad.net/glmark2

    Regards.
    Last edited by grahammechanical; April 25th, 2014 at 08:03 PM.
    It is a machine. It is more stupid than we are. It will not stop us from doing stupid things.
    Ubuntu user #33,200. Linux user #530,530


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Beta Testing in Canada
    Beans
    6,622
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: mir performance with glxgears

    Thanks for your reply. Actually I was quite surprised. I did notice however that with-xorg the gears are rather chunky but with-xmir it is extremely smooth. I'll look for other tests.
    This is Rolling Release
    Warnings for New Beta Testers& Helpful Terminal Commands:
    Running W. Werewolf /dev/@ 4.05GHz64bit/ onE8400 Core2Duo-Wolfdale+Howler

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    London, England
    Beans
    8,284
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: mir performance with glxgears

    I have just installed OpenGL (ES) 2.0 benchmark. It is run in a terminal with glmark2 and Wow! Is that a unicorn I see before me? Just let it run and run. It will eventually stop and this is what I get with xserver.

    graham@Sdb8-Roll-Dev:~$ glmark2
    ================================================== =====
    glmark2 2012.08
    ================================================== =====
    OpenGL Information
    GL_VENDOR: nouveau
    GL_RENDERER: Gallium 0.4 on NVA5
    GL_VERSION: 3.0 Mesa 10.1.0
    ================================================== =====
    [build] use-vbo=false: FPS: 113 FrameTime: 8.850 ms
    [build] use-vbo=true: FPS: 115 FrameTime: 8.696 ms
    [texture] texture-filter=nearest: FPS: 113 FrameTime: 8.850 ms
    [texture] texture-filter=linear: FPS: 118 FrameTime: 8.475 ms
    [texture] texture-filter=mipmap: FPS: 114 FrameTime: 8.772 ms
    [shading] shading=gouraud: FPS: 112 FrameTime: 8.929 ms
    [shading] shading=blinn-phong-inf: FPS: 116 FrameTime: 8.621 ms
    [shading] shading=phong: FPS: 114 FrameTime: 8.772 ms
    [bump] bump-render=high-poly: FPS: 113 FrameTime: 8.850 ms
    [bump] bump-render=normals: FPS: 112 FrameTime: 8.929 ms
    [bump] bump-render=height: FPS: 114 FrameTime: 8.772 ms
    [effect2d] kernel=0,1,0;1,-4,1;0,1,0;: FPS: 113 FrameTime: 8.850 ms
    [effect2d] kernel=1,1,1,1,1;1,1,1,1,1;1,1,1,1,1;: FPS: 114 FrameTime: 8.772 ms
    [pulsar] light=false:quads=5:texture=false: FPS: 111 FrameTime: 9.009 ms
    [desktop] blur-radius=5:effect=blur: passes=1:separable=true:windows=4: FPS: 108 FrameTime: 9.259 ms
    [desktop] effect=shadow:windows=4: FPS: 97 FrameTime: 10.309 ms
    [buffer] columns=200:interleave=false:update-dispersion=0.9:update-fraction=0.5:update-method=map: FPS: 34 FrameTime: 29.412 ms
    [buffer] columns=200:interleave=false:update-dispersion=0.9:update-fraction=0.5:update-method=subdata: FPS: 35 FrameTime: 28.571 ms
    [buffer] columns=200:interleave=true:update-dispersion=0.9:update-fraction=0.5:update-method=map: FPS: 35 FrameTime: 28.571 ms
    [ideas] speed=duration: FPS: 70 FrameTime: 14.286 ms
    [jellyfish] <default>: FPS: 111 FrameTime: 9.009 ms
    [terrain] <default>: FPS: 56 FrameTime: 17.857 ms
    [conditionals] fragment-steps=0:vertex-steps=0: FPS: 111 FrameTime: 9.009 ms
    [conditionals] fragment-steps=5:vertex-steps=0: FPS: 110 FrameTime: 9.091 ms
    [conditionals] fragment-steps=0:vertex-steps=5: FPS: 111 FrameTime: 9.009 ms
    [function] fragment-complexity=low:fragment-steps=5: FPS: 112 FrameTime: 8.929 ms
    [function] fragment-complexity=medium:fragment-steps=5: FPS: 115 FrameTime: 8.696 ms
    [loop] fragment-loop=false:fragment-steps=5:vertex-steps=5: FPS: 113 FrameTime: 8.850 ms
    [loop] fragment-steps=5:fragment-uniform=false:vertex-steps=5: FPS: 114 FrameTime: 8.772 ms
    [loop] fragment-steps=5:fragment-uniform=true:vertex-steps=5: FPS: 112 FrameTime: 8.929 ms
    ================================================== =====
    glmark2 Score: 101
    ================================================== =====
    If only I knew what it meant.
    Last edited by grahammechanical; April 25th, 2014 at 08:17 PM.
    It is a machine. It is more stupid than we are. It will not stop us from doing stupid things.
    Ubuntu user #33,200. Linux user #530,530


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Beta Testing in Canada
    Beans
    6,622
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: mir performance with glxgears

    I installed a program from the Software Center called Blobs. It measures fps. I am still getting 3 to 4 times faster than with xorg.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    This is Rolling Release
    Warnings for New Beta Testers& Helpful Terminal Commands:
    Running W. Werewolf /dev/@ 4.05GHz64bit/ onE8400 Core2Duo-Wolfdale+Howler

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Beta Testing in Canada
    Beans
    6,622
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: mir performance with glxgears

    I think it is an average score.

    With mir.

    Code:
    ventrical@ventrical-desktop:~$ glmark2
    =======================================================
        glmark2 2012.08
    =======================================================
        OpenGL Information
        GL_VENDOR:     nouveau
        GL_RENDERER:   Gallium 0.4 on NVA8
        GL_VERSION:    3.0 Mesa 10.1.0
    =======================================================
    [build] use-vbo=false: FPS: 211 FrameTime: 4.739 ms
    [build] use-vbo=true: FPS: 236 FrameTime: 4.237 ms
    [texture] texture-filter=nearest: FPS: 219 FrameTime: 4.566 ms
    [texture] texture-filter=linear: FPS: 216 FrameTime: 4.630 ms
    [texture] texture-filter=mipmap: FPS: 225 FrameTime: 4.444 ms
    [shading] shading=gouraud: FPS: 211 FrameTime: 4.739 ms
    [shading] shading=blinn-phong-inf: FPS: 212 FrameTime: 4.717 ms
    [shading] shading=phong: FPS: 203 FrameTime: 4.926 ms
    [bump] bump-render=high-poly: FPS: 195 FrameTime: 5.128 ms
    [bump] bump-render=normals: FPS: 233 FrameTime: 4.292 ms
    [bump] bump-render=height: FPS: 217 FrameTime: 4.608 ms
    [effect2d] kernel=0,1,0;1,-4,1;0,1,0;: FPS: 194 FrameTime: 5.155 ms
    [effect2d] kernel=1,1,1,1,1;1,1,1,1,1;1,1,1,1,1;: FPS: 119 FrameTime: 8.403 ms
    [pulsar] light=false:quads=5:texture=false: FPS: 203 FrameTime: 4.926 ms
    [desktop] blur-radius=5:effect=blur:passes=1:separable=true:windows=4: FPS: 210 FrameTime: 4.762 ms
    [desktop] effect=shadow:windows=4: FPS: 226 FrameTime: 4.425 ms
    [buffer] columns=200:interleave=false:update-dispersion=0.9:update-fraction=0.5:update-method=map: FPS: 179 FrameTime: 5.587 ms
    [buffer] columns=200:interleave=false:update-dispersion=0.9:update-fraction=0.5:update-method=subdata: FPS: 191 FrameTime: 5.236 ms
    [buffer] columns=200:interleave=true:update-dispersion=0.9:update-fraction=0.5:update-method=map: FPS: 175 FrameTime: 5.714 ms
    [ideas] speed=duration: FPS: 221 FrameTime: 4.525 ms
    [jellyfish] <default>: FPS: 139 FrameTime: 7.194 ms
    [terrain] <default>: FPS: 27 FrameTime: 37.037 ms
    [conditionals] fragment-steps=0:vertex-steps=0: FPS: 253 FrameTime: 3.953 ms
    [conditionals] fragment-steps=5:vertex-steps=0: FPS: 192 FrameTime: 5.208 ms
    [conditionals] fragment-steps=0:vertex-steps=5: FPS: 253 FrameTime: 3.953 ms
    [function] fragment-complexity=low:fragment-steps=5: FPS: 256 FrameTime: 3.906 ms
    [function] fragment-complexity=medium:fragment-steps=5: FPS: 199 FrameTime: 5.025 ms
    [loop] fragment-loop=false:fragment-steps=5:vertex-steps=5: FPS: 237 FrameTime: 4.219 ms
    [loop] fragment-steps=5:fragment-uniform=false:vertex-steps=5: FPS: 260 FrameTime: 3.846 ms
    [loop] fragment-steps=5:fragment-uniform=true:vertex-steps=5: FPS: 213 FrameTime: 4.695 ms
    =======================================================
                                      glmark2 Score: 204 
    =======================================================
    ventrical@ventrical-desktop:~$
    So ..according to this test it can be assumed that with-mir is twice as fast as xorg and I think we are running the same graphics adapter cards (nVidia GeForce 218).

    There is the old mir bug, though, that old bug that makes typing in from the keyboard show a significant delay.
    Last edited by ventrical; April 25th, 2014 at 08:52 PM.
    This is Rolling Release
    Warnings for New Beta Testers& Helpful Terminal Commands:
    Running W. Werewolf /dev/@ 4.05GHz64bit/ onE8400 Core2Duo-Wolfdale+Howler

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    London, England
    Beans
    8,284
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: mir performance with glxgears

    I have just run glmark2 on my 14.04 install that I was using as a fallback OS. I installed ubuntu-desktop-mir and unity-system-compositor and I made sure that it was running on xmir and this is what I got

    graham@sda2-fallback:~$ glmark2=========================================== ============
    glmark2 2012.08
    ================================================== =====
    OpenGL Information
    GL_VENDOR: nouveau
    GL_RENDERER: Gallium 0.4 on NVA5
    GL_VERSION: 3.0 Mesa 10.1.0
    ================================================== =====
    [build] use-vbo=false: FPS: 287 FrameTime: 3.484 ms
    [build] use-vbo=true: FPS: 324 FrameTime: 3.086 ms
    [texture] texture-filter=nearest: FPS: 309 FrameTime: 3.236 ms
    [texture] texture-filter=linear: FPS: 310 FrameTime: 3.226 ms
    [texture] texture-filter=mipmap: FPS: 319 FrameTime: 3.135 ms
    [shading] shading=gouraud: FPS: 304 FrameTime: 3.289 ms
    [shading] shading=blinn-phong-inf: FPS: 303 FrameTime: 3.300 ms
    [shading] shading=phong: FPS: 301 FrameTime: 3.322 ms
    [bump] bump-render=high-poly: FPS: 250 FrameTime: 4.000 ms
    [bump] bump-render=normals: FPS: 324 FrameTime: 3.086 ms
    [bump] bump-render=height: FPS: 317 FrameTime: 3.155 ms
    [effect2d] kernel=0,1,0;1,-4,1;0,1,0;: FPS: 277 FrameTime: 3.610 ms
    [effect2d] kernel=1,1,1,1,1;1,1,1,1,1;1,1,1,1,1;: FPS: 191 FrameTime: 5.236 ms
    [pulsar] light=false:quads=5:texture=false: FPS: 283 FrameTime: 3.534 ms
    [desktop] blur-radius=5:effect=blurasses=1:separable=true:windows=4: FPS: 299 FrameTime: 3.344 ms
    [desktop] effect=shadow:windows=4: FPS: 301 FrameTime: 3.322 ms
    [buffer] columns=200:interleave=false:update-dispersion=0.9:update-fraction=0.5:update-method=map: FPS: 211 FrameTime: 4.739 ms
    [buffer] columns=200:interleave=false:update-dispersion=0.9:update-fraction=0.5:update-method=subdata: FPS: 220 FrameTime: 4.545 ms
    [buffer] columns=200:interleave=true:update-dispersion=0.9:update-fraction=0.5:update-method=map: FPS: 214 FrameTime: 4.673 ms
    [ideas] speed=duration: FPS: 285 FrameTime: 3.509 ms
    [jellyfish] <default>: FPS: 196 FrameTime: 5.102 ms
    [terrain] <default>: FPS: 48 FrameTime: 20.833 ms
    [conditionals] fragment-steps=0:vertex-steps=0: FPS: 312 FrameTime: 3.205 ms
    [conditionals] fragment-steps=5:vertex-steps=0: FPS: 296 FrameTime: 3.378 ms
    [conditionals] fragment-steps=0:vertex-steps=5: FPS: 311 FrameTime: 3.215 ms
    [function] fragment-complexity=low:fragment-steps=5: FPS: 312 FrameTime: 3.205 ms
    [function] fragment-complexity=medium:fragment-steps=5: FPS: 306 FrameTime: 3.268 ms
    [loop] fragment-loop=false:fragment-steps=5:vertex-steps=5: FPS: 312 FrameTime: 3.205 ms
    [loop] fragment-steps=5:fragment-uniform=false:vertex-steps=5: FPS: 311 FrameTime: 3.215 ms
    [loop] fragment-steps=5:fragment-uniform=true:vertex-steps=5: FPS: 289 FrameTime: 3.460 ms
    ================================================== =====
    glmark2 Score: 277
    ================================================== =====
    I have xserver glmark2 score = 101 and xmir glmark2 score = 277. Yes, similar Nvidia card. GT220 but the important point is not that we are comparing the results from two different machines but we are comparing two results on the same machine. The difference being the video server, x compared to mir.

    Regards.
    It is a machine. It is more stupid than we are. It will not stop us from doing stupid things.
    Ubuntu user #33,200. Linux user #530,530


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Beta Testing in Canada
    Beans
    6,622
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: mir performance with glxgears

    I have been doing some research on testing graphics adapters.. etc...and some say that fps rates are not an accurate way to test. To each their own. By your results and the results I have also put up I would say it is safe to assume that these test prove that mir runs significantly faster than xorg.

    Regards..
    This is Rolling Release
    Warnings for New Beta Testers& Helpful Terminal Commands:
    Running W. Werewolf /dev/@ 4.05GHz64bit/ onE8400 Core2Duo-Wolfdale+Howler

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Beans
    172
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: mir performance with glxgears

    First of all glxgears is not a benchmark. Then you have this:

    Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be
    approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate.
    The results should be around the refresh of your monitor which in most cases this would be 60 FPS. You get much more FPS under XMir because of this bug:

    [regression] GL(X) apps don't have vsync when running under XMir

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Beta Testing in Canada
    Beans
    6,622
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: mir performance with glxgears

    Quote Originally Posted by Mateusz Stachowski View Post
    First of all glxgears is not a benchmark. Then you have this:



    The results should be around the refresh of your monitor which in most cases this would be 60 FPS. You get much more FPS under XMir because of this bug:

    [regression] GL(X) apps don't have vsync when running under XMir
    How about the Blob(s) test? <from USC> They both cannot be wrong , can they? or is this mir bug making a run across the board?

    regards..
    This is Rolling Release
    Warnings for New Beta Testers& Helpful Terminal Commands:
    Running W. Werewolf /dev/@ 4.05GHz64bit/ onE8400 Core2Duo-Wolfdale+Howler

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •