Your glxgears speed? [Archive]

Pas_sa

June 16th, 2007, 02:13 AM

I have the 100.19.04 drivers from Nvidia and am trying to see if all is working okay.

Post YOUR glxgears results here ('glxgears' in terminal) and your specs.

I have a Pentium 4 3.2Ghz (541), 2GB RAM and a Sparkle 320MB 8800GTS. I scored:
andrew@andrewdesktop:~$ glxgears
58461 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11692.069 FPS
61748 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12349.526 FPS
62580 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12515.795 FPS
62167 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12433.243 FPS
62601 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12520.012 FPS
62413 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12482.430 FPS
62663 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12532.582 FPS
62419 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12483.770 FPS
62561 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12512.050 FPS
62599 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12519.755 FPS
55247 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11049.254 FPS
62187 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12437.243 FPS
61592 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12318.213 FPS
62548 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12509.390 FPS

Seems to fluctuate a little, not sure why.. ehh, anyway, please post your results.

pete83

June 16th, 2007, 02:20 AM

Wow, that looks pretty good.

I have a Laptop with an Intel Core Duo 1.86Ghz, 1 GB RAM, Radeon x1300.

Using the proprietary fglrx driver, I get this:

glxgears
3996 frames in 5.0 seconds = 799.102 FPS
3941 frames in 5.0 seconds = 788.014 FPS
3935 frames in 5.0 seconds = 786.809 FPS
3925 frames in 5.0 seconds = 784.821 FPS
3948 frames in 5.0 seconds = 789.441 FPS
3940 frames in 5.0 seconds = 787.988 FPS
3952 frames in 5.0 seconds = 790.365 FPS
3942 frames in 5.0 seconds = 788.382 FPS
3931 frames in 5.0 seconds = 786.062 FPS
3928 frames in 5.0 seconds = 785.599 FPS

I don't think you can complain...

Happy_Man

June 16th, 2007, 02:23 AM

4831 frames in 5.0 seconds = 966.013 FPS
6048 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1209.586 FPS<--Whoa.
11351 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2264.632 FPS<--HOLY HEISENBERG BATMAN!
1688 frames in 8.2 seconds = 206.097 FPS<-- loading a webpage
4526 frames in 5.0 seconds = 905.169 FPS
4831 frames in 5.0 seconds = 966.078 FPS
4839 frames in 5.0 seconds = 967.698 FPS
4842 frames in 5.0 seconds = 968.343 FPS
4841 frames in 5.0 seconds = 967.955 FPS
4850 frames in 5.0 seconds = 969.977 FPS
4831 frames in 5.0 seconds = 966.131 FPS
4839 frames in 5.0 seconds = 967.667 FPS
4836 frames in 5.0 seconds = 967.114 FPS
4839 frames in 5.0 seconds = 967.665 FPS
4786 frames in 5.0 seconds = 957.071 FPS
4605 frames in 5.0 seconds = 920.771 FPS

So, it seems I hover around 967 fps. Not bad for a 5 year old gfx card, eh?

starcraft.man

June 16th, 2007, 02:37 AM

j.miller565

June 16th, 2007, 02:41 AM

Here's mine. BTW I'm using Fedora 7, I should really take that SUSE Avatar out lol

AMD Sempron 2800+, 512MB RAM, nVidia GeForce FX 5200 128MB

3339 frames in 5.0 seconds = 667.726 FPS
6859 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1371.764 FPS
7268 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1453.584 FPS
6553 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1310.535 FPS
7206 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1441.084 FPS
6394 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1278.793 FPS
7040 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1407.852 FPS
7185 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1436.986 FPS
14859 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2971.780 FPS

Bachstelze

June 16th, 2007, 02:42 AM

Nothing to do with support, moved to the Cafe (thanks starcraft.man).

starcraft.man

June 16th, 2007, 02:46 AM

So, it seems I hover around 967 fps. Not bad for a 5 year old gfx card, eh?

Do remember a lot of things contribute to graphical rendering. CPU power, bus and cache, graphics card, interface (agp vs PCI vs PCIe), etc... Graphical performance is a lot more than just the card. I for one know the 6800 can get more juice out, I watched my CPU top off instantly...

Nothing to do with support, moved to the Cafe (thanks starcraft.man).

No problem, always trying to be a good citizen :D.

PatrickMay16

June 16th, 2007, 02:46 AM

-iacknowledgethatthistoolisnotabenchmark

DENIS DENIS DENIS! DENIS.

303 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.494 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.021 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.020 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.020 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.020 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.018 FPS

Motoxrdude

June 16th, 2007, 02:47 AM

moto@moto-desktop:~$ glxgears
24662 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4932.314 FPS
25270 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5053.861 FPS <-- Ended Warcraft 3
49390 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9877.992 FPS
70502 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14100.358 FPS
70189 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14037.654 FPS
69830 frames in 5.0 seconds = 13965.981 FPS

AMD X2 2800+
1gb DDR2 667
Ati x800GTO

This doesnt mean anything though. A 8800GTX would flat out smoke my card any day but yet my fps in glxgears is about the same.

yabbadabbadont

June 16th, 2007, 02:47 AM

Geforce 4 Ti 4200
AthlonXP 2800+ 2.1GHz

18379 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3675.669 FPS
18429 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3685.734 FPS
18375 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3674.821 FPS
18395 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3678.869 FPS
18383 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3676.488 FPS
18385 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3676.915 FPS
18386 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3677.137 FPS
18402 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3680.348 FPS

juxtaposed

June 16th, 2007, 03:03 AM

2659 frames in 5.1 seconds = 523.987 FPS
2660 frames in 5.2 seconds = 514.464 FPS
2660 frames in 5.1 seconds = 522.969 FPS
3500 frames in 5.1 seconds = 691.696 FPS

Doesn't make sense though. I dont have 3d acceleration (using the open source driver), and the gears move really slow, and at like 2 FPS.

pistcivet

June 16th, 2007, 03:08 AM

XP 2600+
9800pro
dave@dave-desktop:~$ glxgears -printfps
28929 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5785.625 FPS
28895 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5778.895 FPS
28902 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5780.282 FPS
28901 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5780.180 FPS
28903 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5780.452 FPS
28902 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5780.292 FPS
28905 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5780.959 FPS
:popcorn:

w4ett

June 16th, 2007, 03:11 AM

With an Athlon 2400+ 512MB Ram and 64mb ATI Radeon 9200SE

5083 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1016.476 FPS
5084 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1016.637 FPS
5083 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1016.422 FPS
5085 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1016.828 FPS
5084 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1016.746 FPS
5083 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1016.496 FPS
5012 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1002.283 FPS

PhatStreet

June 16th, 2007, 03:14 AM

With a Radeon Mobility 9100 AGP and the "ati" modules, I get under 500, lol.

blah blah blah

June 16th, 2007, 03:15 AM

I got it to 2.499.

Bachstelze

June 16th, 2007, 03:21 AM

Around 11,000 on FreeBSD with my Geforce Go 7600 laptop with a 1,83 GHz Dual Core Pentium M and 2G of RAM. Out of memory, can't test it right now as there is no accelerated nvidia drivers for OpenBSD.

Pas_sa

June 16th, 2007, 03:38 AM

Nothing to do with support, moved to the Cafe (thanks starcraft.man).

Oop.. sorry. Originally I was going to make a support thread and ask if those speeds were normal, but by the end I'd turned it into something completely different. Won't happen again :( ..

Bachstelze

June 16th, 2007, 03:51 AM

Oop.. sorry. Originally I was going to make a support thread and ask if those speeds were normal, but by the end I'd turned it into something completely different. Won't happen again :( ..

No harm done :) Just don't do that too often so you don't get in our "Hall of Infamous" thread in the staff forum ;)

orb9220

June 16th, 2007, 04:01 AM

AMD 64 3500+ @ 2.21Ghz.-1gig of ram- nvidia 128mb FX5900XT

Metacity:

orb@Two-Rivers:~$ glxgears
27834 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5566.629 FPS
28548 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5709.525 FPS
28304 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5660.784 FPS
28609 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5721.746 FPS
28498 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5699.577 FPS

Beryl:

orb@Two-Rivers:~$ glxgears
924 frames in 5.0 seconds = 184.719 FPS
793 frames in 5.0 seconds = 158.590 FPS
1304 frames in 5.0 seconds = 260.517 FPS
1057 frames in 5.0 seconds = 211.162 FPS
1212 frames in 5.0 seconds = 242.119 FPS
1060 frames in 5.0 seconds = 211.972 FPS
1205 frames in 5.0 seconds = 240.820 FPS

aktiwers

June 16th, 2007, 04:07 AM

aktiwers@HAL:~$ glxgears
6345 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1268.985 FPS
7023 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1404.584 FPS
7027 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1405.365 FPS
7007 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1401.306 FPS
7031 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1406.196 FPS
7023 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1404.599 FPS
7024 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1404.690 FPS

Club 3D GeForce 6200 NVIDIA GeForce 6200A / 400 MHz / 85 Hz / AGP 8x / 256 MB GDDR2 SDRAM / 533 MHz

FuturePilot

June 16th, 2007, 04:18 AM

Nvidia GeForce 2 Go(32MB) with the 9631 driver due to my card being dumped to Legacy status:(

3559 frames in 5.0 seconds = 711.712 FPS
4132 frames in 5.0 seconds = 826.251 FPS
4109 frames in 5.0 seconds = 821.609 FPS
4130 frames in 5.0 seconds = 825.875 FPS
4129 frames in 5.0 seconds = 825.726 FPS
4131 frames in 5.0 seconds = 826.089 FPS
4130 frames in 5.0 seconds = 825.849 FPS
4130 frames in 5.0 seconds = 825.948 FPS
4112 frames in 5.0 seconds = 822.389 FPS
4116 frames in 5.0 seconds = 823.086 FPS

starcraft.man

June 16th, 2007, 04:27 AM

5year old P4 2.4 Ghz (i forget bus, cache is 512 I think) 1 GB DDR1 memory, 6800 GT 128mb

I'm pretty happy with it I guess, I'm pretty sure the results are CPU bound ... I could probably top off 2250 if I turned beryl off but can't be bothered.

10893 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2178.558 FPS
10847 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2169.312 FPS
10871 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2173.781 FPS
10867 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2173.331 FPS
10863 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2171.056 FPS
10847 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2169.282 FPS
10945 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2188.757 FPS
11082 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2216.303 FPS
11040 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2207.958 FPS
10819 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2162.474 FPS

Can we get this moved to cafe?

Oh and I hope I get really good performance out of my dual core with 8800 GTX , I'll post back with that when I get it :D.

WOW! I can't believe the difference in numbers after I shut beryl off... I swear, only thing I turned off.

49903 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9980.572 FPS
49692 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9938.382 FPS
50019 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10003.788 FPS
50016 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10003.170 FPS
50057 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10011.284 FPS
50029 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10005.772 FPS
49835 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9966.876 FPS
50030 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10005.876 FPS
49956 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9991.122 FPS
49866 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9973.164 FPS

And I thought my ol' p4 was obsolete :p

FuturePilot

June 16th, 2007, 04:30 AM

Wow, my card stinks compared to all yours[-(

deanlinkous

June 16th, 2007, 04:30 AM

698 frames in 5.0 seconds = 139.452 FPS
696 frames in 5.0 seconds = 139.178 FPS
697 frames in 5.0 seconds = 139.399 FPS
696 frames in 5.0 seconds = 139.158 FPS

ATI 8mb onboard rage (mach64)
700mhz PIII omnibook laptop

Of course, if you cover the gears window with another window things really improve... :)
6151 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1230.047 FPS
6195 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1238.840 FPS
6212 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1242.214 FPS

blah blah blah

June 16th, 2007, 04:33 AM

I got it to 2.499.

That was really stupid now I'm going to need to reboot.

iceportal

June 16th, 2007, 06:17 AM

Ubuntu 7.04 on a Dell Inspiron 8600, Pentium 4 (don't know what processor speed :P) 512mb RAM, and the nVidia driver that was automatically installed by Ubuntu (System->Administration->Restricted Drivers Manager). Ran it at its default size with Firefox, Evolution, and IE6 running (via wine).

6428 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1285.447 FPS
6437 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1287.204 FPS
6448 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1289.459 FPS
6425 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1284.893 FPS
6423 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1284.435 FPS
6434 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1286.726 FPS
6340 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1267.937 FPS
6441 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1288.083 FPS
6448 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1289.409 FPS
6435 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1286.849 FPS
6437 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1287.222 FPS

Not bad...

At fullscreen (1280x800 widescreen) it runs as so:

714 frames in 5.0 seconds = 142.629 FPS
714 frames in 5.0 seconds = 142.663 FPS
714 frames in 5.0 seconds = 142.623 FPS
713 frames in 5.0 seconds = 142.552 FPS
713 frames in 5.0 seconds = 142.502 FPS

Got this laptop about 3 years ago.

quantum110

June 16th, 2007, 06:28 AM

7600GS 512MB @ 4xAGP (FIC MB throws a fit at 8x)
XP 3000+ 1GB PC2700
21301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4260.110 FPS
21293 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4258.534 FPS
21299 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4259.768 FPS
20137 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4027.386 FPS
19921 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3984.145 FPS
21251 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4250.147 FPS
21230 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4245.825 FPS
21227 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4245.322 FPS
21197 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4239.214 FPS
21199 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4239.768 FPS
20997 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4199.378 FPS
21226 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4245.109 FPS
21229 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4245.753 FPS

Full 1280x1024
1824 frames in 5.0 seconds = 364.647 FPS
1824 frames in 5.0 seconds = 364.611 FPS
1823 frames in 5.0 seconds = 364.529 FPS
1824 frames in 5.0 seconds = 364.617 FPS
1824 frames in 5.0 seconds = 364.642 FPS
1824 frames in 5.0 seconds = 364.691 FPS
1823 frames in 5.0 seconds = 364.574 FPS

Outrunner

June 16th, 2007, 06:38 AM

6710 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1341.994 FPS
6716 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1343.076 FPS
6716 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1343.046 FPS
6716 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1343.150 FPS
6715 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1342.946 FPS
6716 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1343.045 FPS
6714 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1342.672 FPS
6714 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1342.761 FPS
6713 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1342.479 FPS
6713 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1342.558 FPS
6705 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1340.850 FPS

I don't like this :(

P4 3.0GHz 1MB cache
1GB RAM
ASUS GeForce 6200 , 256 video RAM(I know, I know...) AGP x8

deanlinkous

June 16th, 2007, 06:42 AM

I think my onboard via chipset could beat some of those...

muguwmp67

June 16th, 2007, 09:36 AM

This two year old is holding up pretty well...
AMD 64 X2 3800+
Geforce 6800 GS

In metacity:

~$ glxgears
60321 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12064.010 FPS
60555 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12110.898 FPS
61286 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12257.116 FPS
60741 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12148.118 FPS
61363 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12272.453 FPS

In Beryl:

$ glxgears
28290 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5657.902 FPS
31059 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6211.663 FPS
31698 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6339.459 FPS
33849 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6769.263 FPS
31258 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6251.440 FPS

The Noble

June 16th, 2007, 09:55 AM

x700 Pro with the ATI/Radeon Open Source drivers.

glxgears
12566 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2513.127 FPS
12830 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2565.860 FPS
12837 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2567.222 FPS
12836 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2567.037 FPS
12816 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2563.055 FPS
12840 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2567.833 FPS
12829 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2565.618 FPS
12837 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2567.225 FPS
12813 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2562.494 FPS

Runs Beryl beautifully but randomly lags until I switch back and forth between Metacity and Beryl.

FGLRX drivers yield somewhere along the lines of 5500 FPS. I knew I didn't have all of my bases covered when I bought it... I should have bought a 6600 GT. Oh well, who knew I would eventually use Linux.

Nonetheless, I'm still jealous of all you guys with over ten thousand. Must run beryl like a dream (well, so does mine...).

For future posters! Please post at least your Card and your driver with the results! Shuold help those really loking for comparisons.

Spr0k3t

June 16th, 2007, 10:35 AM

Yeah, there's quite a difference when you shut off the extraneous glitz and glamor.

Specs: Foxconn board, AMD FX64 X2 3800+, 2GB, Foxconn nVidia 7950GTX 512MB w/Xinerama

Beryl

55478 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11095.505 FPS
55922 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11183.195 FPS
55876 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11175.065 FPS
55948 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11189.553 FPS
55474 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11094.700 FPS
56033 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11206.444 FPS
55492 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11098.254 FPS
56082 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11216.328 FPS
55852 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11170.397 FPS
52936 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10587.182 FPS
54073 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10814.482 FPS

Beryl + Fullscreen (3360x1050)

2738 frames in 5.0 seconds = 547.501 FPS
2737 frames in 5.0 seconds = 547.337 FPS
2740 frames in 5.0 seconds = 547.953 FPS
2736 frames in 5.0 seconds = 547.171 FPS
2729 frames in 5.0 seconds = 545.785 FPS
2735 frames in 5.0 seconds = 546.914 FPS

Metacity

83565 frames in 5.0 seconds = 16712.822 FPS
85028 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17005.502 FPS
86468 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17293.471 FPS
86425 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17284.812 FPS
80065 frames in 5.0 seconds = 16012.869 FPS
84262 frames in 5.0 seconds = 16852.385 FPS
86262 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17252.246 FPS
86539 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17307.629 FPS
84263 frames in 5.0 seconds = 16852.533 FPS
82478 frames in 5.0 seconds = 16495.412 FPS

Metacity + Fullscreen (3360x1050)

7206 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1441.146 FPS
7457 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1491.244 FPS
7461 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1492.157 FPS
7570 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1513.835 FPS
7506 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1501.125 FPS
7572 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1514.254 FPS

adityakavoor

June 16th, 2007, 10:40 AM

Intel Onboard 965 integrated graphics 128 mb

aditya@ubuntu:~$ glxgears
4900 frames in 5.0 seconds = 979.328 FPS
4325 frames in 5.0 seconds = 864.929 FPS
5427 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1085.282 FPS
5514 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1102.736 FPS
5444 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1088.764 FPS
3394 frames in 5.0 seconds = 678.722 FPS
5175 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1034.850 FPS
3558 frames in 5.0 seconds = 711.487 FPS
5003 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1000.512 FPS
5513 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1102.541 FPS
5512 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1102.390 FPS
5342 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1068.231 FPS
5516 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1103.057 FPS
5514 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1102.653 FPS

EdThaSlayer

June 16th, 2007, 12:10 PM

9816 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1963.035 FPS
9861 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1972.165 FPS
9962 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1992.288 FPS
9548 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1909.498 FPS

Using ATI Radeon 9600 mobility with opensource ATI drivers(Imesa 3d). :)

bobbocanfly

June 16th, 2007, 01:23 PM

Hovered around 600 on my 7 and a half year old computer with stock everything, Interl Pentium 4 and 512mb RAM.

I am also using beryl and doing massive data backups......that probably impacted it a bit.

Not that bad really?

Kubunteando

June 16th, 2007, 07:22 PM

jgarciad@laptop:/C/Linux$ glxgears
libGL warning: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x4b
6611 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1322.146 FPS
6619 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1323.657 FPS
6620 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1323.816 FPS
6601 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1320.115 FPS
6618 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1323.534 FPS
6593 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1318.582 FPS

Pentium M 2GHz
ATI Mobility Radeon 9000 with 32MB
Resolution: 1024x768

For the ones using ATI Open Source drivers, you can install "driconf" from the repositories and enable the "HyperZ buffer". That will give you about 20%-30% more!

This is an old card, and I am getting the same performance as an ATI 9200 and 9600?
It sounds strange...

I have tested some games and with this card I get the same performance as with Windows drivers, for example running Cube, maybe 1 or 2 FPS of difference, noting you will notice really when playing though.

For the testing to be significant 2 things are important:
- idle CPU, so no other processes are consuming CPU
- screen resolution

stmiller

June 17th, 2007, 07:38 AM

Interesting. glxgears works in OS X with X11. heh!

Dual 2Ghz G5 10.4.9 Radeon 9600 128MB

stmiller:~ stmiller$ glxgears
12829 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2565.800 FPS
13843 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2768.600 FPS
13901 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2780.200 FPS
13815 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2763.000 FPS

Kubunteando

June 17th, 2007, 08:35 AM

ATI Radeon Mobility 9000 and Open Source drivers.

With little bit of fine-tunning I rised from 1300 FPS, I posted before, to nearly 2400 FPS.
No cheating.

jgarciad@laptop:/dev$ glxgears
libGL warning: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x4b
11939 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2387.787 FPS
11991 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2398.168 FPS
12002 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2400.369 FPS
11997 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2399.338 FPS
11996 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2399.180 FPS
11989 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2397.634 FPS

sloggerkhan

June 17th, 2007, 08:45 AM

With glx gears running at near full screen (maximized), one instance on each of my 1680x1050 monitors, I get:
490 frames in 5.0 seconds = 97.876 FPS
506 frames in 5.0 seconds = 101.154 FPS
507 frames in 5.0 seconds = 101.157 FPS
and
509 frames in 5.0 seconds = 101.683 FPS
494 frames in 5.0 seconds = 98.745 FPS
510 frames in 5.0 seconds = 101.843 FPS

with lots of other apps running.

With one instance at default res (still with other apps running) I get:
15268 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3053.514 FPS
15263 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3052.554 FPS
15330 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3065.927 FPS
15272 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3054.348 FPS

using ati x700 mobility, 128 mb, closed drivers.

jaggerlink

June 17th, 2007, 08:47 AM

Metacity:

9409 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1881.395 FPS
28162 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5632.374 FPS
27701 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5540.165 FPS
26180 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5235.893 FPS
27268 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5453.578 FPS
27921 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5584.111 FPS

Beryl:

3151 frames in 5.0 seconds = 630.185 FPS
2547 frames in 5.0 seconds = 509.377 FPS
3308 frames in 5.0 seconds = 661.450 FPS
3295 frames in 5.0 seconds = 658.919 FPS
3199 frames in 5.0 seconds = 639.613 FPS

This is with open source 3d acceleration by the way.

bonzodog

June 17th, 2007, 11:18 AM

With Nvidia GeForce 6200 GT 256MB Shared Memory card:

[~]->glxgears
5737 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1147.306 FPS
6537 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1307.277 FPS
6476 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1295.057 FPS
6474 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1294.726 FPS
6538 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1307.415 FPS
6475 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1294.856 FPS
6472 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1294.330 FPS
6536 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1307.151 FPS
6472 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1294.242 FPS
6474 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1294.752 FPS
6538 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1307.404 FPS
6472 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1294.288 FPS
6474 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1294.757 FPS
6536 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1307.115 FPS
6472 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1294.326 FPS

Not too bad by my reckoning.

xpod

June 17th, 2007, 12:12 PM

2515 frames in 5.0 seconds = 502.978 FPS
8444 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1688.756 FPS
8346 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1669.188 FPS
8554 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1710.658 FPS
8677 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1735.228 FPS
8671 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1734.050 FPS

1.8Ghz,512MB & 64MB Geforce MX4000.
I rarely play pc games and beryl works well enough so all those numbers are neither here nor there to me:D

Toontwnca

June 17th, 2007, 08:53 PM

glxgears3415 frames in 5.0 seconds = 682.983 FPS
3441 frames in 5.0 seconds = 688.158 FPS
3444 frames in 5.0 seconds = 688.693 FPS
3443 frames in 5.0 seconds = 688.567 FPS
3444 frames in 5.0 seconds = 688.623 FPS
3441 frames in 5.0 seconds = 688.038 FPS
3444 frames in 5.0 seconds = 688.785 FPS
3442 frames in 5.0 seconds = 688.284 FPS
3443 frames in 5.0 seconds = 688.521 FPS
3444 frames in 5.0 seconds = 688.617 FPS
3444 frames in 5.0 seconds = 688.643 FPS
3444 frames in 5.0 seconds = 688.779 FPS
3444 frames in 5.0 seconds = 688.758 FPS
3442 frames in 5.0 seconds = 688.217 FPS
3444 frames in 5.0 seconds = 688.707 FPS
3444 frames in 5.0 seconds = 688.761 FPS
3425 frames in 5.0 seconds = 684.996 FPS

On my Toshiba A70 Pentium 4 with Radeon 9000 graphics
using the Mesa drivers that are installed by default.

scourge

June 17th, 2007, 09:36 PM

What do I win?

125703 frames in 5.0 seconds = 25140.480 FPS
125720 frames in 5.0 seconds = 25143.871 FPS
125748 frames in 5.0 seconds = 25149.412 FPS
125603 frames in 5.0 seconds = 25120.436 FPS
125599 frames in 5.0 seconds = 25119.676 FPS

My specs:
Core 2 Duo E6600
Club3D GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB (using the nvidia-glx-new driver)
2 GB RAM
Feisty Fawn x86_64
Metacity window manager

Liakoni

June 24th, 2007, 01:47 PM

AMD 3000+ , RAM 1GB, NVIDIA 6600 256 MB

Beryl
7419 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1483.784 FPS
8409 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1681.151 FPS
8692 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1738.353 FPS
7392 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1478.203 FPS
8995 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1798.454 FPS
5906 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1181.164 FPS
5009 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1001.580 FPS
8794 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1758.728 FPS
8912 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1782.319 FPS
8802 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1760.345 FPS
8898 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1778.925 FPS
8869 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1773.795 FPS
8121 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1623.934 FPS
8695 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1738.907 FPS

Metacity
19606 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3921.078 FPS
19542 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3908.290 FPS
19597 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3918.830 FPS

infoseeker

June 24th, 2007, 04:30 PM

32969 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6593.617 FPS
33521 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6704.165 FPS
33518 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6703.446 FPS
33537 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6707.246 FPS
33515 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6702.831 FPS
33513 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6702.443 FPS
33523 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6704.440 FPS
33509 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6701.717 FPS

Celeron D 2.8, 1GB ram
nVidia 6600GT 128MB
nVidia-glx

scott_g

June 24th, 2007, 04:47 PM

System Specs:
AMD 4200+ X2
1GB DDR2 Ram
7600GS NVIDIA PCI-e with restricted drivers

Beryl:
24100 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4819.996 FPS
24787 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4957.266 FPS
24782 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4956.326 FPS
24875 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4974.865 FPS
24481 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4896.157 FPS
24149 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4829.725 FPS
24559 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4911.659 FPS
24690 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4937.948 FPS

Metacity:
31341 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6268.103 FPS
31383 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6276.582 FPS
31381 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6276.026 FPS
31378 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6275.531 FPS
31377 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6275.231 FPS
31387 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6277.366 FPS
31383 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6276.462 FPS
31383 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6276.481 FPS
31385 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6276.958 FPS

mips

June 25th, 2007, 09:21 AM

Amd64 3200+
1GB Ram
GeForce 6600

Average about 7000FPS
35324 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7064.617 FPS

Pugwash

June 25th, 2007, 09:32 AM

I'm on an ati radeon 9600xt

11426 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2285.141 FPS
11358 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2269.396 FPS
11317 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2263.355 FPS
14998 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2999.508 FPS
14956 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2988.074 FPS
15011 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2999.505 FPS
14768 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2950.942 FPS
14594 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2918.725 FPS
14232 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2844.293 FPS

aussiedini

June 25th, 2007, 11:11 AM

P4 3.0 overclocked to 3.15 with 1g ram and NV7600GS

53096 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10619.110 FPS
71942 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14388.395 FPS
72160 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14431.928 FPS
72017 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14403.351 FPS
71691 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14338.056 FPS
71941 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14388.082 FPS
72236 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14447.122 FPS
72044 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14408.719 FPS

Halve that with desktop effect enabled

samjh

June 25th, 2007, 12:54 PM

51921 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10384.065 FPS
51907 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10381.306 FPS
51904 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10380.723 FPS
51903 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10380.531 FPS
51928 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10385.534 FPS
51898 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10379.515 FPS
51909 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10381.690 FPS
51908 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10381.475 FPS
51927 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10385.292 FPS
51773 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10354.411 FPS

Intel Core2 Duo 6300
2G RAM
NVidia 7600GT
Setting: nvidia-glx driver, 1024x768, 24bpp
Ubuntu: 7.04 with Metacity

alan_daniel

June 25th, 2007, 01:04 PM

51874 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10374.798 FPS
66154 frames in 5.0 seconds = 13230.726 FPS
85223 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17044.457 FPS
82789 frames in 5.0 seconds = 16557.711 FPS
85438 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17087.402 FPS
85537 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17107.338 FPS
84388 frames in 5.0 seconds = 16877.529 FPS
84197 frames in 5.0 seconds = 16839.400 FPS
80903 frames in 5.0 seconds = 16180.464 FPS
76775 frames in 5.0 seconds = 15354.874 FPS

Average: 15666 FPS

Intel Core2 Duo 6300
2G RAM
NVidia 7600GT
Setting: nvidia-glx driver, 1024x768, 24bpp
Ubuntu: 7.04 with Metacity
... while reading this thread using Firefox. :)

Man, that's pretty impressive...
Unfortunately I'm on my old Ubuntu box right now...an old Thinkpad R31 instead of my much newer Thinkpad T43. I'm getting right around 300 fps...which is absolutely nothing compared to that

samjh

June 25th, 2007, 01:10 PM

Man, that's pretty impressive...
Unfortunately I'm on my old Ubuntu box right now...an old Thinkpad R31 instead of my much newer Thinkpad T43. I'm getting right around 300 fps...which is absolutely nothing compared to that

Nah, I've found out why it was so high. I was reading this thread in the background, so the gears were hidden behind my Firefox window. OpenGL didn't have to bother drawing the frames on screen, so it was just doing calculations! :o

I've edited my post with only glxgears running: no unintentional cheating involved. :) It turns out that 10300 FPS is the average. :(

IusedTObeSOMEONEelse

June 25th, 2007, 01:25 PM

oOP's, this is awful!!

$ glxgears
4693 frames in 5.0 seconds = 938.596 FPS
5867 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1173.249 FPS
5904 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1180.689 FPS
3324 frames in 6.0 seconds = 552.825 FPS
3018 frames in 5.2 seconds = 584.790 FPS
5803 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1160.564 FPS
5961 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1192.079 FPS
5098 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1019.551 FPS
5400 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1079.908 FPS
5485 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1096.854 FPS
5401 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1080.032 FPS
5709 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1141.656 FPS
5578 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1115.548 FPS
5181 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1036.086 FPS
5766 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1153.161 FPS
4622 frames in 5.0 seconds = 924.342 FPS
4528 frames in 5.0 seconds = 905.464 FPS
4345 frames in 5.0 seconds = 868.985 FPS
4000 frames in 5.0 seconds = 799.911 FPS
4517 frames in 5.0 seconds = 903.315 FPS
5419 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1083.645 FPS
1376 frames in 5.0 seconds = 275.197 FPS

anaconda

June 25th, 2007, 09:11 PM

hmm..
1700 FPS

but if I make the window bigger it drops to 300-400 FPS
and if I make it smaller I get about 10000 FPS

Is this how some of you got >10000 ???

I have nvidia 7300... something..

mips

June 25th, 2007, 10:01 PM

and if I make it smaller I get about 10000 FPS

Is this how some of you got >10000 ???

lol, minimise the window and close all other windows/apps & see what you get then. glxgears is NOT a benchmark tool. There are GPU benchmark tools out there which we should rather use.

cookieforyou

June 25th, 2007, 10:04 PM

$ glxgears
34166 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6833.054 FPS
34217 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6843.229 FPS
34192 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6838.323 FPS
34112 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6822.257 FPS
34207 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6841.369 FPS
34191 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6838.081 FPS
34207 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6841.122 FPS
34216 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6843.131 FPS
34173 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6834.495 FPS

nVidia 6600GT

Motoxrdude

June 25th, 2007, 10:05 PM

smithman89

June 25th, 2007, 10:21 PM

$glxgears
26537 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5307.237 FPS
29825 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5964.938 FPS
29356 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5871.072 FPS
25103 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5020.443 FPS
29645 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5928.992 FPS
28970 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5793.919 FPS
26278 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5255.467 FPS
20364 frames in 5.1 seconds = 3984.110 FPS
28745 frames in 5.4 seconds = 5335.799 FPS
17028 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3394.807 FPS

Intel Pentium 4 HT 3.04GHz
1GB DDR2 533MHz
Nvidia GeForce 6600 256Mb AGP
nvidia-glx driver, 1600x1200, Ubuntu 6.06 w/ latest updates

Offoffoff

July 3rd, 2007, 11:15 AM

909 frames in 5.0 seconds = 181.738 FPS
958 frames in 5.0 seconds = 191.587 FPS
975 frames in 5.0 seconds = 194.829 FPS
899 frames in 5.0 seconds = 179.761 FPS
928 frames in 5.0 seconds = 185.424 FPS
969 frames in 5.0 seconds = 193.610 FPS
899 frames in 5.0 seconds = 179.775 FPS
964 frames in 5.0 seconds = 192.762 FPS!!!
Full speed!
Compaq Evo n400c... ATI Rage Mobility P/M AGP 2x, PIII-700, 256 Mb. That's cooler than Core Duo and 8xxx, in spite of effective using...

Enkay

July 9th, 2007, 02:10 AM

I have a Alienware Sentia 3450

Core 2 Duo T7200 @ 2.0 gHz
1.5 GB Ram
Intel i945 Graphics Chipset

this is what I got:

$ glxgears
4249 frames in 5.0 seconds = 849.668 FPS
4476 frames in 5.0 seconds = 895.069 FPS
4444 frames in 5.0 seconds = 888.660 FPS
4436 frames in 5.0 seconds = 887.099 FPS
4446 frames in 5.0 seconds = 889.039 FPS
4428 frames in 5.0 seconds = 885.530 FPS
4049 frames in 5.0 seconds = 809.730 FPS
4261 frames in 5.0 seconds = 851.772 FPS

I don't think its horrible for a Laptop with a junky Vid Card.

Coolit

July 14th, 2007, 01:51 PM

I've Just done a fresh install of Feisty with the latest Nvidia drivers, here's my results:-

Feisty x86, AMD X2 4200 @ 2.7ghz, BFG 8800GTX OC, 2gb RAM

andy@GAMING-PC:~$ glxgears
101927 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20385.278 FPS
102232 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20446.388 FPS
100448 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20089.435 FPS
102634 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20526.701 FPS
102515 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20502.877 FPS
102766 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20553.097 FPS
102910 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20581.983 FPS
102699 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20539.616 FPS
103045 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20608.831 FPS
103050 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20609.843 FPS

Pretty happy :popcorn:

EDIT: Res @ 1650x1080

Bonz

July 16th, 2007, 10:28 PM

After Coolit's post this makes my PC look like a wimp. X1900GT 256MB (budget gamer card :P $140). I've always been an ATi guy, but it looks like this could be changing unless they release something for Linux in the future. Always liked ATi and always hated AMD...what will I do now...The x2xxx series looks kickass though, it's just too bad....

bonz@Bonz-Ubuntu:~$ glxgears
54344 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10868.661 FPS
56026 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11205.018 FPS
56012 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11202.232 FPS
55973 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11194.546 FPS
55608 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11121.507 FPS
55974 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11194.771 FPS
55957 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11191.284 FPS
55942 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11188.369 FPS
56266 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11253.124 FPS
56145 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11228.908 FPS
56099 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11219.636 FPS

Nikron

July 16th, 2007, 11:03 PM

16569 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3313.644 FPS
16831 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3366.095 FPS
16827 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3365.398 FPS
16832 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3366.233 FPS
16842 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3368.243 FPS
16840 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3367.978 FPS
16852 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3370.294 FPS
16709 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3341.631 FPS
16300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3259.977 FPS

The trick: minimize it

And I still get bad results =P

Bonz

July 16th, 2007, 11:36 PM

Well in that case,

bonz@Bonz-Ubuntu:~$ glxgears
70974 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14194.667 FPS
76219 frames in 5.0 seconds = 15243.648 FPS
77099 frames in 5.0 seconds = 15419.769 FPS
75898 frames in 5.0 seconds = 15179.472 FPS
77336 frames in 5.0 seconds = 15467.049 FPS
74374 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14874.624 FPS
77848 frames in 5.0 seconds = 15569.591 FPS

If this is my $150 card, shouldn't the guy above with the 8800GTX have way more than 20k? o.o

BOBSONATOR

July 17th, 2007, 12:11 AM

60659 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12131.795 FPS

ATI X800 PRO on FGLRX

Coolit

July 17th, 2007, 01:30 AM

If this is my $150 card, shouldn't the guy above with the 8800GTX have way more than 20k? o.o

Unfortunately it's CPU limited even with the CPU overclock:( I did have Dreamlinux setup on this PC which uses the Xfce desktop and I was getting mid 25k. So 5k for free with the lighter desktop:)

Biskit64

July 17th, 2007, 01:38 AM

Amd 3000 xp
Bfg 6800gs

57860 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11571.991 FPS
63193 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12638.517 FPS
63017 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12603.372 FPS
63171 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12634.089 FPS
63170 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12633.934 FPS
63063 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12612.600 FPS
63187 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12637.223 FPS
63139 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12627.656 FPS
63127 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12625.370 FPS
63135 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12626.851 FPS

pain of salvation

July 17th, 2007, 05:37 PM

[root@arch alvaro]# glxgears
93530 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18705.817 FPS
95194 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19038.755 FPS
95129 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19025.629 FPS
95751 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19150.058 FPS
95075 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19014.844 FPS
62852 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12570.184 FPS
53503 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10700.424 FPS

nvidia 7600gt

bogdan.veringioiu

July 18th, 2007, 06:44 AM

4899 frames in 5.0 seconds = 979.683 FPS
5002 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1000.390 FPS
5004 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1000.688 FPS
5005 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1000.939 FPS
4998 frames in 5.0 seconds = 999.461 FPS
5000 frames in 5.0 seconds = 999.987 FPS
5001 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1000.147 FPS
5010 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1001.998 FPS

Laptop with intel core duo processor T2050 (1.60 GHZ), Intel 950 graphics.

stmiller

July 18th, 2007, 07:26 AM

Nvidia 7300LE, 128MB PCIe. Do not buy a card with this chip it's not that great.

15078 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3015.563 FPS
15075 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3014.856 FPS
15067 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3013.255 FPS
15078 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3015.457 FPS

To get higher scores, move the terminal window entirely on top of the glxgears while doing the benchmark.

regomodo

July 18th, 2007, 08:37 AM

sempron 3100+

nVidia 6800 gt overclocked from 350/1000 to 400/1100MHz and 1.3v to 1.4v

54564 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10910.293 FPS
49367 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9873.364 FPS
52759 frames in 5.1 seconds = 10337.044 FPS
53788 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10757.508 FPS
56264 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11252.719 FPS
56079 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11215.659 FPS
53561 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10712.063 FPS
57667 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11533.391 FPS
57240 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11447.972 FPS
50904 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10180.706 FPS
53726 frames in 5.1 seconds = 10517.651 FPS
54928 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10985.529 FPS
56472 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11294.326 FPS
50886 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10176.703 FPS

tomcheng76

July 18th, 2007, 08:47 AM

Geforce 4 MX440 crap
P4 1.8GA crap

5704 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1140.715 FPS
6080 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1215.957 FPS
6834 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1366.717 FPS
9626 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1925.163 FPS
10643 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2128.462 FPS
6465 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1292.792 FPS
9517 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1903.338 FPS
9545 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1908.971 FPS
8047 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1608.911 FPS
10995 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2198.675 FPS
10536 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2107.063 FPS
10953 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2190.453 FPS
6058 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1211.534 FPS
6983 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1396.553 FPS
10089 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2017.740 FPS
10489 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2097.694 FPS
10225 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2044.866 FPS
10330 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2065.946 FPS
10765 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2152.763 FPS
8473 frames in 5.5 seconds = 1541.034 FPS
10297 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2059.349 FPS
10925 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2182.682 FPS
6709 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1337.783 FPS

erikpiper

July 19th, 2007, 11:04 PM

EVGA 7900 GT- 500/700mhz, 256Mb. Thermaltake ND1 cooler.
EVGA 590 mobo
AMD Am2 3500+ 2.2Ghz stock, 2.63 Ghz OC'ed.

Glxgears standard size, in view. Only program open. (Besides terminal)
Base Ubuntu 7.04 install, with srivers from standard restricted drivers panel.

86813 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17362.498 FPS
86799 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17359.793 FPS
85689 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17137.660 FPS
84523 frames in 5.0 seconds = 16904.455 FPS
86142 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17228.307 FPS
86703 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17340.594 FPS
86719 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17343.684 FPS
86706 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17341.025 FPS
86640 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17327.957 FPS
86726 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17345.121 FPS
86694 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17338.715 FPS
83873 frames in 5.0 seconds = 16774.506 FPS

misfitpierce

July 19th, 2007, 11:08 PM

50232 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10046.267 FPS
50588 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10117.463 FPS
50426 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10085.178 FPS
50431 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10086.033 FPS
50506 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10101.127 FPS

ATI 200 Closed Restricted drivers.... :( sigh too lazy to setup new drivers and give a test.

Pas_sa

August 11th, 2007, 08:35 AM

*thread bump*

Well, I upgraded my system to a E6600 Core 2 Duo (2.4GHz) and a shiny new mobo, and it shows. Same GPU:

andrew@andrewdesktop:~$ glxgears
87337 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17467.263 FPS
71493 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14298.578 FPS
70913 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14182.526 FPS
72232 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14446.328 FPS
71728 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14345.454 FPS
71710 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14341.871 FPS
71730 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14345.914 FPS
71692 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14338.254 FPS
71768 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14353.594 FPS
83821 frames in 5.0 seconds = 16764.170 FPS
101168 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20233.584 FPS
101101 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20220.066 FPS
101160 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20231.907 FPS
101100 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20219.947 FPS
101229 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20245.703 FPS
101188 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20237.527 FPS
101167 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20233.368 FPS
101107 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20221.258 FPS
101117 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20223.380 FPS
101148 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20229.567 FPS
101147 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20229.223 FPS
101024 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20204.707 FPS
100985 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20196.855 FPS
100905 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20180.952 FPS
andrew@andrewdesktop:~$

A little slow at first, no idea why, then it picks up.. I imagine I could score higher if the 8xxx series drivers weren't so weak.

surfjdh

September 4th, 2007, 12:19 AM

Radeon 9200 se using
Mesa DRI R200 20060602 AGP 1x x86/MMX+/3DNow!+/SSE TCL
1.3 Mesa 6.5.2
and advanced configuration inside "driconf" which is available in the repositories, and rocks.
47252 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9450.375 FPS
58233 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11646.586 FPS
58292 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11658.330 FPS
58275 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11654.842 FPS
26393 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5278.599 FPS<== opened Opera
43067 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8613.264 FPS
54624 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10924.730 FPS
48370 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9673.988 FPS<== closed opera
52963 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10592.577 FPS
57883 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11576.512 FPS

K.Mandla

September 4th, 2007, 12:23 AM

Sayers

September 4th, 2007, 12:36 AM

Intergrated Video Card, I didnt know it could do 3d

1428 frames in 5.0 seconds = 285.474 FPS
1317 frames in 5.0 seconds = 263.333 FPS
1959 frames in 5.0 seconds = 391.788 FPS
2485 frames in 5.0 seconds = 496.883 FPS

dizee

September 4th, 2007, 12:45 AM

ATi Radeon Xpress 200M, 8.34.8 driver, Celery 1.4 GHz radiator, sorry, processor ;)

5548 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1109.583 FPS
5576 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1115.038 FPS
5564 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1112.662 FPS
5515 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1102.841 FPS
5540 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1107.842 FPS

This is in a non-Xgl session, though I'm not sure that there'd be that much difference, and I'm too lazy to logout to find out, so there.

sloggerkhan

September 12th, 2007, 10:32 PM

Redache

September 12th, 2007, 11:42 PM

26991 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5397.860 FPS
33613 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6722.464 FPS
35048 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7009.576 FPS
36368 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7273.517 FPS
34841 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6967.925 FPS
36583 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7316.452 FPS
35508 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7101.486 FPS
34317 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6863.370 FPS
35736 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7147.197 FPS
36743 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7348.538 FPS
34367 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6873.352 FPS
36459 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7281.049 FPS
32860 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6571.361 FPS

Intel Core 2 Duo E4300
2Gb RAM
Geforce 8600 GT

Not too bad, I probably could get better if I closed everything but Glxgears but I'd be bored without me music.

dynamethod

September 13th, 2007, 12:51 AM

my results with the new ATI driver just released,

X800 XT 256mb agpx8 card:

~$ glxgears
32667 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6533.242 FPS
33530 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6705.851 FPS
33618 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6723.460 FPS
25510 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5101.917 FPS
27028 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5405.546 FPS
33775 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6754.912 FPS
28268 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5653.513 FPS
18805 frames in 5.1 seconds = 3706.355 FPS
17710 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3541.979 FPS
33304 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6660.664 FPS
32754 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6550.761 FPS
35516 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7103.132 FPS
33013 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6602.480 FPS
35062 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7012.226 FPS
35033 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7006.461 FPS
34733 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6946.592 FPS
35188 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7037.517 FPS
32581 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6516.195 FPS
35522 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7104.320 FPS
32251 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6450.057 FPS
32645 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6503.255 FPS
32179 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6435.787 FPS

BLTicklemonster

September 13th, 2007, 03:06 AM

bill@bill-desktop:~$ glxgears
6467 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1293.310 FPS
4665 frames in 5.7 seconds = 817.773 FPS
3601 frames in 5.0 seconds = 718.556 FPS
3601 frames in 5.0 seconds = 720.143 FPS
9066 frames in 5.3 seconds = 1722.531 FPS
18785 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3756.809 FPS
18450 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3689.934 FPS
18524 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3704.626 FPS
18374 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3674.794 FPS
17837 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3567.304 FPS
9132 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1826.214 FPS
6607 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1321.217 FPS
10462 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2092.322 FPS
18196 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3639.130 FPS
18759 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3751.762 FPS
18801 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3760.165 FPS
18140 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3627.923 FPS
18406 frames in 5.1 seconds = 3579.769 FPS

up and down.

FuturePilot

September 13th, 2007, 03:32 AM

Without SyncToVblank
19320 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3863.859 FPS
19414 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3882.650 FPS
19881 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3976.024 FPS
19699 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3939.680 FPS
19897 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3979.300 FPS
19640 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3927.809 FPS
19892 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3978.296 FPS
19539 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3907.766 FPS
19816 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3963.024 FPS

With SyncToVblank
303 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.426 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.028 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.019 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.023 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.023 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.028 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.023 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.023 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.024 FPS

Oh? Is that normal? :-s

TheeMahn2003

September 13th, 2007, 03:34 AM

theemahn@SledgeHammer:~$ glxgears
63584 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12716.731 FPS
91442 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18288.294 FPS
89962 frames in 5.0 seconds = 17991.076 FPS
90520 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18103.956 FPS
91257 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18251.240 FPS
59648 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11929.411 FPS
58654 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11730.772 FPS
X connection to :0.0 broken (explicit kill or server shutdown).
theemahn@SledgeHammer:~$

Regular mode I assume, envy configured my cards may come back and post SLI AA, and various modes, mind you running each and every one at 1680 X 1050.

My rig:
AMD 64 X2 4600+ (heatpipe cpu cooler)
Asus A8N-SLI32 deluxe (dual heat pipes)
Onboard dual gigabit lan (cable Internet)
Onboard 8 channel sound; Zenith receiver (1,250 watts), MTX AAL212B speakers (600 watts each)
1 GB PC-3200 ULL dual channel DDR
2 X Geforce 7600 PCIE GT's 256MB each (SLI 32X AA mode)
CMV221D 22" widescreen LCD monitor
1 Sata II 250GB hard drive, 2 X Sata II 320GB hard drives
Wireless Linksys RA-2500 adapter (neighbors Internet) :)
18X DVD burner, 48X external CD burner
DLink router
Wireless mouse

Sorry for the elaborate detail in specs taken from one of my pages. Wow posted and went back to see others, I was jamming to music as well as other apps open, I guess this is the reason I ask for the absolute highest res and detail in any game I have ran and takes it ;) I guess a true power machine. I am sure there is faster, but at the cost of 2 7600's? Burnt the 8800 of the initial post, and did so w/o paying out the a** ;)

Dropbear

September 13th, 2007, 06:55 AM

without compiz fusion

47453 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9490.480 FPS
49854 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9970.669 FPS
49354 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9870.717 FPS
49933 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9986.560 FPS
49722 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9944.281 FPS
49240 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9847.811 FPS
47372 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9474.395 FPS

with compiz fusion

32649 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6529.745 FPS
34264 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6852.764 FPS
34803 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6960.575 FPS
34499 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6899.648 FPS
33934 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6786.758 FPS
32916 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6583.122 FPS
31009 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6199.520 FPS

AMD Athlon64 3800+, 1GB ddr2 667mhz ram, Geforce 7600gt 256mb graphics card

aln

September 13th, 2007, 11:36 AM

Athlon 3000 XP, 1 GB RAM, Radeon 9200 128 MB, 1280x1024

original glxgears window size:
10113 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2022.475 FPS
10488 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2097.421 FPS
10520 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2104.000 FPS
10558 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2111.429 FPS
10555 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2110.835 FPS
10527 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2105.236 FPS
10538 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2107.531 FPS
10283 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2056.581 FPS
10245 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2048.969 FPS
10302 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2060.253 FPS

glxgears fullscreen:
1157 frames in 5.0 seconds = 231.254 FPS
1246 frames in 5.0 seconds = 249.155 FPS
1247 frames in 5.0 seconds = 249.243 FPS
1246 frames in 5.0 seconds = 249.160 FPS
1246 frames in 5.0 seconds = 249.119 FPS
1246 frames in 5.0 seconds = 249.122 FPS
1204 frames in 5.0 seconds = 240.605 FPS
1038 frames in 5.0 seconds = 207.527 FPS

LookTJ

September 13th, 2007, 11:45 AM

Pent M, 2GB ram, ati radeon mobility 9000

6310 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1257.837 FPS
494 frames in 5.0 seconds = 98.607 FPS
494 frames in 5.0 seconds = 98.614 FPS
4347 frames in 5.0 seconds = 869.395 FPS
6402 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1280.367 FPS
6402 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1280.352 FPS
6403 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1280.473 FPS
6403 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1280.456 FPS
6403 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1280.433 FPS
6371 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1274.059 FPS
6400 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1279.959 FPS
6377 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1275.316 FPS

fullscreen:

1189 frames in 5.0 seconds = 237.741 FPS
1188 frames in 5.0 seconds = 237.470 FPS
1188 frames in 5.0 seconds = 237.457 FPS
1189 frames in 5.0 seconds = 237.612 FPS
1188 frames in 5.0 seconds = 237.484 FPS
1188 frames in 5.0 seconds = 237.600 FPS
1189 frames in 5.0 seconds = 237.608 FPS
1188 frames in 5.0 seconds = 237.490 FPS
1188 frames in 5.0 seconds = 237.597 FPS
1188 frames in 5.0 seconds = 237.586 FPS

firstcupoffreshpressed

October 30th, 2007, 08:38 AM

P4 1.6G processor, 1G RAM, Gutsy, no visual effects enabled

20280 frames in 6.8 seconds = 2976.654 FPS
23827 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4765.281 FPS
11382 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2276.390 FPS
25224 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5044.679 FPS
32126 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6425.124 FPS
32149 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6429.754 FPS
31603 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6320.496 FPS
31522 frames in 5.1 seconds = 6232.111 FPS
29615 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5922.904 FPS
32662 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6532.220 FPS
32422 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6484.229 FPS

I enabled visual effects in control center and got this:

5510 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1101.984 FPS
5296 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1057.049 FPS
5231 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1046.108 FPS
5955 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1190.990 FPS
5142 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1028.000 FPS
5861 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1172.164 FPS
6089 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1217.772 FPS

I installed a used pny Geforce4 TI4600 yesterday and my scores got a lot better when i changed drivers. This is with firefox running and the gears window behind the terminal window.

When I changed drivers the screen reolution messed up and I had to reconfigure x. Then I didn't have menu bars and had to edit x. It was worth the effort because my gears more than quadrupled.

:guitar:

BOZG

October 30th, 2007, 10:58 AM

Stephen@stephen-desktop:~$ glxgears
71373 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14274.435 FPS
74214 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14842.791 FPS
75268 frames in 5.0 seconds = 15053.431 FPS
73579 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14715.700 FPS
73379 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14674.646 FPS
72092 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14418.389 FPS
73487 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14697.291 FPS
68656 frames in 5.0 seconds = 13731.167 FPS
74334 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14866.743 FPS
75089 frames in 5.0 seconds = 15017.635 FPS
75318 frames in 5.0 seconds = 15063.537 FPS
75643 frames in 5.0 seconds = 15128.509 FPS
73961 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14792.200 FPS
74820 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14963.997 FPS
75452 frames in 5.0 seconds = 15090.366 FPS
75611 frames in 5.0 seconds = 15122.194 FPS

And with Compiz disabled:

stephen@stephen-desktop:~$ glxgears
83327 frames in 5.0 seconds = 16665.304 FPS
97265 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19452.763 FPS
96218 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19243.577 FPS
97589 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19517.659 FPS
96184 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19236.765 FPS
95745 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19148.831 FPS
95923 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19184.409 FPS
98380 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19675.972 FPS
100414 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20082.764 FPS
99803 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19960.580 FPS
100382 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20076.312 FPS
100349 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20069.708 FPS
100091 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20018.032 FPS

AMD64 X2 5200+ / 1GB DDR2 / Sparkle 8800GTS 640MB

I need to buy more RAM to really push it though.

samjh

October 30th, 2007, 01:51 PM

52671 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10534.103 FPS
50964 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10192.800 FPS
51758 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10351.585 FPS
51745 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10348.918 FPS
51759 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10351.719 FPS
51736 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10347.115 FPS
51758 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10351.546 FPS
51745 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10348.967 FPS
51765 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10352.818 FPS
51738 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10347.412 FPS
51461 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10292.093 FPS

Looks like my CPU upgrade didn't yield a big increase graphical performance.

ice60

October 30th, 2007, 03:26 PM

$ glxgears
452339 frames in 5.0 seconds = 90467.800 FPS
480897 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96159.243 FPS
481517 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96303.400 FPS
473358 frames in 5.0 seconds = 94655.378 FPS
481147 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96221.141 FPS
480763 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96150.253 FPS
481751 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96350.182 FPS
479411 frames in 5.0 seconds = 95867.873 FPS
480606 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96116.204 FPS
478694 frames in 5.0 seconds = 95736.271 FPS
477901 frames in 5.0 seconds = 95580.182 FPS

EDIT. i just looked through everyone else's results, i didn't realise the custom nvidia driver i wrote was doing such a good job, maybe i should open up the code??

Jay Jay

February 8th, 2008, 04:29 AM

Finally managed to get direct rendering working on my laptop, so I might as well resurrect this thread and add my figures.

HP Omnibook 6000 with PIII 600E Mhz & Ati Mobility P/M AGP 2x 8MB, glxgears at fullscreen:

4763 frames in 5.0 seconds = 952.430 FPS
4124 frames in 5.0 seconds = 824.736 FPS
4117 frames in 5.0 seconds = 823.284 FPS
4763 frames in 5.0 seconds = 952.494 FPS
4764 frames in 5.0 seconds = 952.710 FPS
4134 frames in 5.0 seconds = 826.757 FPS
4102 frames in 5.0 seconds = 820.253 FPS
4769 frames in 5.0 seconds = 953.636 FPS
4758 frames in 5.0 seconds = 951.587 FPS
4136 frames in 5.0 seconds = 827.189 FPS
4109 frames in 5.0 seconds = 821.729 FPS
4762 frames in 5.0 seconds = 952.289 FPS
4767 frames in 5.0 seconds = 953.352 FPS
4129 frames in 5.0 seconds = 825.652 FPS
4036 frames in 5.0 seconds = 807.125 FPS
4741 frames in 5.0 seconds = 948.089 FPS
4772 frames in 5.0 seconds = 954.280 FPS
4122 frames in 5.0 seconds = 824.342 FPS
4113 frames in 5.0 seconds = 822.535 FPS
4758 frames in 5.0 seconds = 951.576 FPS
4717 frames in 5.0 seconds = 943.230 FPS
4131 frames in 5.0 seconds = 826.200 FPS
4109 frames in 5.0 seconds = 821.661 FPS
4765 frames in 5.0 seconds = 952.864 FPS
4754 frames in 5.0 seconds = 950.694 FPS
4141 frames in 5.0 seconds = 827.999 FPS
4111 frames in 5.0 seconds = 822.021 FPS
4763 frames in 5.0 seconds = 952.537 FPS
4389 frames in 5.0 seconds = 877.647 FPS

Flying caveman

February 8th, 2008, 07:28 AM

suzanne@suzanne-desktop:~$ glxgears
50507 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10101.267 FPS
52812 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10562.265 FPS
53576 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10715.196 FPS
94568 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18913.545 FPS
95021 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19004.041 FPS
95003 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19000.406 FPS
95001 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19000.135 FPS
95034 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19006.713 FPS
94997 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18999.223 FPS
94997 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18999.385 FPS
94999 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18999.697 FPS
94975 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18994.887 FPS
94894 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18978.754 FPS

AMDx2 6000+ 4GB ram 7600GT

hhhhhx

February 8th, 2008, 07:57 AM

XFX 8800GTS 512mb

xhhux@lucy:~$ glxgears
109997 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21999.330 FPS
110108 frames in 5.0 seconds = 22021.490 FPS
110116 frames in 5.0 seconds = 22023.069 FPS
110209 frames in 5.0 seconds = 22041.632 FPS
112235 frames in 5.0 seconds = 22446.928 FPS
111969 frames in 5.0 seconds = 22393.679 FPS
112182 frames in 5.0 seconds = 22436.324 FPS
111971 frames in 5.0 seconds = 22394.033 FPS
111992 frames in 5.0 seconds = 22398.297 FPS
111753 frames in 5.0 seconds = 22350.466 FPS
107911 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21582.011 FPS

hhhhhx

February 8th, 2008, 07:58 AM

aktiwers

February 9th, 2008, 06:22 PM

icechen1

February 9th, 2008, 06:46 PM

Intel GM945 card 1g ram
:
icechen1@icechen1-laptop:~$ glxgears
4322 frames in 5.0 seconds = 864.221 FPS
4394 frames in 5.0 seconds = 878.762 FPS
4400 frames in 5.0 seconds = 879.888 FPS
4386 frames in 5.0 seconds = 877.092 FPS
4309 frames in 5.0 seconds = 861.618 FPS
4388 frames in 5.0 seconds = 877.495 FPS
4388 frames in 5.0 seconds = 877.595 FPS
4065 frames in 5.0 seconds = 812.440 FPS
4107 frames in 5.0 seconds = 821.256 FPS
4280 frames in 5.0 seconds = 855.989 FPS

myoungf1

February 9th, 2008, 06:49 PM

Ok folks here are my speeds

12107 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2421.269 FPS
13775 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2754.549 FPS
13790 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2757.903 FPS
13897 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2779.344 FPS
13808 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2761.577 FPS
13842 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2768.365 FPS
13739 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2747.730 FPS
13228 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2645.535 FPS

~LoKe

February 9th, 2008, 06:58 PM

Meh.

137240 frames in 5.0 seconds = 27447.830 FPS
137464 frames in 5.0 seconds = 27492.762 FPS
137518 frames in 5.0 seconds = 27503.533 FPS
145293 frames in 5.0 seconds = 29058.420 FPS
147121 frames in 5.0 seconds = 29424.018 FPS
147109 frames in 5.0 seconds = 29421.653 FPS
146898 frames in 5.0 seconds = 29379.565 FPS
147249 frames in 5.0 seconds = 29449.719 FPS
147018 frames in 5.0 seconds = 29403.547 FPS

markp1989

February 9th, 2008, 07:01 PM

Desktop in my sig:

mark@mark-desktop:~$ glxgears
5810 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1161.905 FPS
6210 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1241.765 FPS
6169 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1233.623 FPS
6170 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1233.883 FPS
6174 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1234.695 FPS
6111 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1222.179 FPS
6189 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1237.716 FPS
6184 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1236.725 FPS
6160 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1231.945 FPS
6160 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1231.996 FPS

regomodo

February 9th, 2008, 07:25 PM

8800gt stock with 169.09 64bit nvidia drivers

105942 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21188.307 FPS
105307 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21061.359 FPS
105698 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21139.469 FPS
108448 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21689.406 FPS
108221 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21644.146 FPS
108545 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21708.854 FPS
108114 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21622.756 FPS
108523 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21704.510 FPS

$ glxgears
452339 frames in 5.0 seconds = 90467.800 FPS
480897 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96159.243 FPS
481517 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96303.400 FPS
473358 frames in 5.0 seconds = 94655.378 FPS
481147 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96221.141 FPS
480763 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96150.253 FPS
481751 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96350.182 FPS
479411 frames in 5.0 seconds = 95867.873 FPS
480606 frames in 5.0 seconds = 96116.204 FPS
478694 frames in 5.0 seconds = 95736.271 FPS
477901 frames in 5.0 seconds = 95580.182 FPS

EDIT. i just looked through everyone else's results, i didn't realise the custom nvidia driver i wrote was doing such a good job, maybe i should open up the code?? Holy crap! That is impressive. I'd like to see what you've done too and know card it is.

hhhhhx

March 10th, 2008, 04:00 AM

Whoa!! ice60 :shock:

OffHand

June 7th, 2008, 12:37 PM

$ glxgears
37972 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7590.549 FPS
38084 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7616.722 FPS
38061 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7612.057 FPS
38193 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7638.485 FPS
38103 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7620.579 FPS

Dell Laptop XPS M1530
GeForce 8600M GT
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7250 @ 2.00GHz
2 GB Memory

bobbocanfly

June 7th, 2008, 01:41 PM

8147 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1629.313 FPS
7935 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1586.996 FPS
8248 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1649.430 FPS
8276 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1655.152 FPS
7863 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1572.541 FPS
8290 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1657.877 FPS
7784 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1556.701 FPS
7599 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1519.652 FPS
7706 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1541.052 FPS
8144 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1628.755 FPS
7748 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1549.537 FPS
8122 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1624.398 FPS
8102 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1620.338 FPS
7517 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1503.329 FPS
7783 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1556.490 FPS
7665 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1532.855 FPS
7293 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1458.554 FPS

nick09

June 7th, 2008, 01:54 PM

Can't help it, its an 3 year old budget PC my parents have.

nick@family-desktop:~$ glxgears
2318 frames in 5.0 seconds = 461.577 FPS
3040 frames in 5.0 seconds = 606.943 FPS
2940 frames in 5.0 seconds = 586.987 FPS
3300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 658.786 FPS
3720 frames in 5.0 seconds = 741.697 FPS
3600 frames in 5.0 seconds = 718.272 FPS
3740 frames in 5.0 seconds = 746.683 FPS
3640 frames in 5.0 seconds = 726.788 FPS
3720 frames in 5.0 seconds = 742.607 FPS
3760 frames in 5.0 seconds = 749.372 FPS
3749 frames in 5.0 seconds = 749.777 FPS
3760 frames in 5.0 seconds = 750.230 FPS
3260 frames in 5.0 seconds = 649.063 FPS
3580 frames in 5.0 seconds = 712.131 FPS
3340 frames in 5.0 seconds = 664.517 FPS
3620 frames in 5.0 seconds = 721.288 FPS
3620 frames in 5.0 seconds = 720.359 FPS
2280 frames in 5.0 seconds = 452.894 FPS
2680 frames in 5.0 seconds = 535.318 FPS
3660 frames in 5.0 seconds = 729.803 FPS
3720 frames in 5.0 seconds = 741.375 FPS
3620 frames in 5.0 seconds = 721.771 FPS

Barrucadu

June 7th, 2008, 01:59 PM

I feel pitifully inadequate with my ancient slow computer :p

$ glxgears
998 frames in 5.1 seconds = 197.279 FPS
960 frames in 5.0 seconds = 190.979 FPS
960 frames in 5.0 seconds = 191.519 FPS
960 frames in 5.0 seconds = 191.648 FPS
980 frames in 5.1 seconds = 192.446 FPS

bobdob20

June 7th, 2008, 02:06 PM

Here's my x1950pro

34137 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6827.302 FPS
40276 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8055.084 FPS
39828 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7965.563 FPS
39599 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7919.755 FPS
39614 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7922.714 FPS
39629 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7925.641 FPS
39641 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7928.089 FPS
39649 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7929.714 FPS
39723 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7944.451 FPS
39720 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7943.832 FPS
39715 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7942.744 FPS
39711 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7942.135 FPS
39717 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7943.306 FPS

sonni_kuba

June 7th, 2008, 05:26 PM

Zotac 8800 GT 512MB AMP! Edition
Q6600 @ 3.1GHz
8192MB RAM

119275 frames in 5.0 seconds = 23854.818 FPS
119320 frames in 5.0 seconds = 23863.977 FPS
119380 frames in 5.0 seconds = 23875.895 FPS
119449 frames in 5.0 seconds = 23889.670 FPS
119437 frames in 5.0 seconds = 23887.334 FPS

nice upgrade from my HD2600 :)

Trail

June 9th, 2008, 07:55 AM

26795 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5358.952 FPS
27182 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5436.291 FPS
27184 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5436.698 FPS
27138 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5427.459 FPS

Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7500 @ 2.20GHz
2x 1GB DIMM DDR Synchronous 667 MHz (1.5 ns)
Quadro NVS 135M

My work laptop. Running KDE4.1 beta with desktop effects disabled (losing about 1500 with effects enabled. Gfx card kinda sucks anyhow.

Nice thing is, with KDE4 I get a large boost on glxgears; about 20% compared to gnome or kde3.

ghindo

June 9th, 2008, 09:03 AM

michael@ubuntu:~$ glxgears
5497 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1099.293 FPS
5774 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1154.646 FPS
5750 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1149.877 FPS
5774 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1154.746 FPS
5772 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1153.803 FPSCore 2 Duo T7100 (1.80 GHz)
2 GB RAM
Intel X3100 Integrated Graphics

Pas_sa

September 18th, 2008, 05:51 AM

andrew@andrewdesktop:~$ glxgears
76025 frames in 5.0 seconds = 15204.963 FPS
72837 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14558.964 FPS
71028 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14205.563 FPS
71378 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14275.497 FPS
63634 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12721.025 FPS
72535 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14507.000 FPS
72581 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14515.950 FPS
65389 frames in 5.0 seconds = 13077.693 FPS
72883 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14576.527 FPS
69417 frames in 5.0 seconds = 13881.929 FPS
67046 frames in 5.0 seconds = 13404.937 FPS
73493 frames in 5.0 seconds = 14698.597 FPS
63807 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12750.437 FPS
75875 frames in 5.0 seconds = 15172.639 FPS

Buuummppp.. proof the Nvidia drivers are improving? I dunno, my system is identical besides a new CPU/mobo.

Shazaam

September 18th, 2008, 06:16 AM

glxgears isn't really a good benchmark. Here is mine...

50516 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10103.051 FPS
56267 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11253.350 FPS
58444 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11688.751 FPS
58522 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11704.398 FPS
58576 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11715.127 FPS
58639 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11727.680 FPS

AMD Athlon XP3200
BFG 7800GS agp.
2gigs ram.

eragon100

September 18th, 2008, 06:19 AM

Mine:

glxgears
28618 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5723.500 FPS
28653 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5730.562 FPS
28636 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5727.122 FPS
28687 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5737.361 FPS
28660 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5731.895 FPS

core 2 duo 6300 @ 1.86 GHZ, 3 GB RAM @ 667 MHZ, 512 MB Nvidia GeForce 8 8600 GT (just new!)

toupeiro

September 18th, 2008, 07:37 AM

glxgears
48193 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9638.573 FPS
48723 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9744.431 FPS
48656 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9731.065 FPS
48583 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9716.432 FPS
48654 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9730.722 FPS

OpenGL vendor string: NVIDIA Corporation
OpenGL renderer string: Quadro FX 1600M/PCI/SSE2
OpenGL version string: 2.1.2 NVIDIA 169.12

cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep -i intel
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7800 @ 2.60GHz
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7800 @ 2.60GHz

fatality_uk

September 18th, 2008, 10:06 AM

97819 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19563.757 FPS

Intel Q6600 Quad core CPU
nVidia 8800GT 1GB DDR3
2GB DDR3 RAM
Ubuntu 8.04

Devon788

September 18th, 2008, 06:11 PM

heres what a decent PC i built 5ish years ago can do now....lol

4183 frames in 5.0 seconds = 836.551 FPS
5004 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1000.699 FPS
6266 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1253.184 FPS
7011 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1390.019 FPS
5889 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1170.936 FPS
6725 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1344.906 FPS
7702 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1539.667 FPS

AMD Sempron 3100+
2GB DDR
GeForce FX 5200

W00T for being too broke to upgrade my machine!!

Lord Udedenkz

September 18th, 2008, 08:50 PM

14620 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2923.931 FPS
13815 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2762.919 FPS
14182 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2836.244 FPS
13532 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2706.275 FPS
13527 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2705.246 FPS
13964 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2792.703 FPS
13654 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2730.736 FPS
12999 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2599.800 FPS
13522 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2704.334 FPS
13668 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2731.393 FPS

Core 2 Duo T8300 @ 2400Mhz w. 3072kb L2
1024x2 666Mhz Equivelent DDR2
800Mhz FSB
8600M GT 475Mhz Core / 400MHz DDR2 RAM / 950Mhz Shader Clock
173 Drivers

Medium w. Phys High Crysis in XP64

Just reinstalled drivers and refreshed x.org,
17627 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3525.395 FPS
18687 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3737.291 FPS
17621 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3523.769 FPS
16031 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3206.049 FPS
16590 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3317.966 FPS
17924 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3584.595 FPS
16313 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3262.456 FPS
16106 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3220.259 FPS
17861 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3572.072 FPS
18400 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3679.610 FPS
18330 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3665.971 FPS
18145 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3628.774 FPS
17950 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3587.927 FPS
17470 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3493.931 FPS

fedex1993

September 18th, 2008, 09:52 PM

i think mine is pretty good. nvidia 7950 overclocked a bit.

54840 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10967.880 FPS
47843 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9568.456 FPS
56516 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11303.077 FPS
53501 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10700.198 FPS
52419 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10483.632 FPS
45394 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9078.660 FPS
51739 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10347.798 FPS
50960 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10191.845 FPS

jhenager

September 21st, 2008, 01:34 AM

7759 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1551.758 FPS
7875 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1574.889 FPS
7868 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1573.578 FPS
7877 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1575.383 FPS
This is with a stock onboard video card on the m/b listed in my sig. All I know is that this system smokes my old AMD 64 3000+.

Patrick793

September 21st, 2008, 01:37 AM

5041 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1008.186 FPS
5151 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1029.910 FPS
5215 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1042.903 FPS
5204 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1040.771 FPS
5210 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1041.823 FPS

AMD Sempron 3200
ATI Xpress 200
692 MB RAM

00arthuryu

December 2nd, 2008, 02:19 AM

1478 frames in 5.1 seconds = 292.333 FPS
1480 frames in 5.0 seconds = 293.884 FPS
1500 frames in 5.1 seconds = 296.912 FPS
1440 frames in 5.0 seconds = 287.540 FPS
1280 frames in 5.0 seconds = 254.651 FPS
1280 frames in 5.1 seconds = 253.168 FPS
1300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 257.856 FPS

4850 with no composite manager.... quite strange...:confused:

bsharp

December 2nd, 2008, 03:44 AM

geforce 7000M on my laptop:

7679 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1535.652 FPS
7978 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1595.544 FPS
7979 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1595.752 FPS

Better than I was expecting...

garfilth

December 5th, 2008, 06:25 PM

AMD Athlon xp 2200 @1.75 gh. 1gb ram and geforce6200 256mb.

with compiz on got average 1000 FPS

with metacity got 800 FPS

fjf

December 5th, 2008, 11:52 PM

I only get

296 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.127 FPS

Inst this too little (from what I see here) for a core 2 duo 3GHz + nvidia 8800GT 512MB?.

garfilth

December 8th, 2008, 05:13 PM

Just upgraded to 8.10 and tried again.

292 frames in 5.0 seconds = 58.390 FPS
295 frames in 5.0 seconds = 58.830 FPS
254 frames in 5.0 seconds = 50.731 FPS
271 frames in 5.0 seconds = 54.144 FPS
268 frames in 5.0 seconds = 53.445 FPS
293 frames in 5.0 seconds = 58.444 FPS
278 frames in 5.0 seconds = 55.440 FPS
289 frames in 5.0 seconds = 57.630 FPS
291 frames in 5.0 seconds = 58.031 FPS
288 frames in 5.0 seconds = 57.436 FPS
294 frames in 5.0 seconds = 58.617 FPS
284 frames in 5.0 seconds = 56.652 FPS
274 frames in 5.0 seconds = 54.639 FPS

happy with that. Compiz running as well.

w4ett

December 8th, 2008, 06:58 PM

FIC K7MNF-64 with Athlon XP 3200, 2gb Ram, Nvidia 5500 128Mb (using 96.43.05 driver) on 8.04.

Metacity:

7392 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1478.336 FPS
7431 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1486.111 FPS
7400 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1479.953 FPS

Compiz Fusion:

4904 frames in 5.0 seconds = 979.237 FPS
4893 frames in 5.0 seconds = 977.018 FPS
4867 frames in 5.0 seconds = 973.350 FPS

eragon100

December 8th, 2008, 07:40 PM

I only get

296 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.127 FPS

Inst this too little (from what I see here) for a core 2 duo 3GHz + nvidia 8800GT 512MB?.

You probably don't have the nvidia 3d binary drivers installed, go to system -> Administration -> hardware drivers, and install them from there. You also need them to enable desktop effects, and to play most games :wink:

lswest

December 8th, 2008, 07:44 PM

3204 frames in 5.0 seconds = 640.514 FPS

AMD Turion 64x2 1.8GHz CPU and an Nvidia 7150M chipset (laptop) running openbox (no compiz) and xcompmgr.

Seems pretty good for a laptop :P (this one at least...)

Private_Ops

December 8th, 2008, 11:36 PM

ops@ops-laptop:~$ glxgears
7920 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1583.914 FPS
8351 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1670.008 FPS
8348 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1669.412 FPS
8351 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1670.005 FPS
8344 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1668.614 FPS
^C
ops@ops-laptop:~$

Athlon 1.9GHz dual core / 1GB RAM / Nvidia 7150

kagashe

December 9th, 2008, 06:28 AM

On Metacity:
3711 frames in 5.0 seconds = 742.077 FPS
3609 frames in 5.0 seconds = 721.639 FPS
11946 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2389.068 FPS
13284 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2656.652 FPS
13008 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2601.555 FPS
12916 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2583.182 FPS
12975 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2594.860 FPS
13114 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2622.744 FPS
12977 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2595.286 FPS
12941 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2588.198 FPS
13426 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2684.909 FPS

On COMPIZ
3535 frames in 5.0 seconds = 706.908 FPS
3708 frames in 5.0 seconds = 741.483 FPS
3714 frames in 5.0 seconds = 742.743 FPS
3720 frames in 5.0 seconds = 743.848 FPS
3715 frames in 5.0 seconds = 742.952 FPS
3133 frames in 5.0 seconds = 626.444 FPS
3464 frames in 5.0 seconds = 692.746 FPS
3576 frames in 5.0 seconds = 714.934 FPS
3187 frames in 5.0 seconds = 637.279 FPS
2860 frames in 5.0 seconds = 571.787 FPS
3313 frames in 5.0 seconds = 662.564 FPS
3418 frames in 5.0 seconds = 683.527 FPS

Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.66GHz 256 MB RAM
82915G/GV/910GL Integrated Graphics Controller

kagashe

zeealpal

February 6th, 2009, 07:11 AM

My glxgears results were 8124 Average.
Nvidia 7300GT 128mb
2gb ram
1.8GHZ Pentium Dual Core
1650x1050 resolution

wolfe

February 6th, 2009, 07:33 AM

in compiz:
pwolfe@omniscience:~$ glxgears
29772 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5954.334 FPS
30309 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6061.746 FPS
29277 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5854.726 FPS
28994 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5798.451 FPS

intel q6600 overclocked to 3.2ghz
nvidia 8800gt

upgrading to a phenom 940 that I hope to push to 4ghz and an nvidia gtx 295

Martje_001

February 6th, 2009, 08:06 AM

Seems that I'm limited to my refresh rate:

304 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.748 FPS
300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.896 FPS
297 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.320 FPS
296 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.090 FPS
300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.856 FPS

Hakunushi

April 6th, 2009, 08:47 PM

98998 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19799.430 FPS
94598 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18919.428 FPS
94490 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18897.936 FPS
98857 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19771.361 FPS
98835 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19766.906 FPS
98865 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19772.854 FPS
98837 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19767.307 FPS
98750 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19749.902 FPS
98737 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19747.234 FPS
98857 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19771.328 FPS
98906 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19781.109 FPS
98884 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19776.777 FPS
98912 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19782.230 FPS
98913 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19782.588 FPS
98855 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19770.992 FPS
98740 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19747.816 FPS
98762 frames in 5.0 seconds = 19752.324 FPS

amd x2 6000+ @ 3.1ghz
2 x Nvidia geforce 9600gt (SLI)
Ubuntu 8.10
nvidia drivers: 180.44

kzipz

May 29th, 2009, 10:08 PM

Re: glxgears
I have just installed UbuntuStudio x64 Jaunty on a system I built myself. I have a gigabyte motherboard, Phenom 940 CPU, 4GB ram and a sapphire 4950 1Gb graphics card.

After about a week of tweaking my settings and installing 2.6.28-11-server kernel I'm getting some great results.

kserv@fire-serv:~$ glxgears
Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be
approximately 1/387921 the monitor refresh rate.
61917 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12383.396 FPS
66289 frames in 5.0 seconds = 13257.679 FPS
65820 frames in 5.0 seconds = 13163.824 FPS
66307 frames in 5.0 seconds = 13261.268 FPS

This is a drastic improvement over the results on the generic kernel which where topping at about 5000-7000 FPS

Any feedback from the community on these results would be great to hear.

I've been on the steep side of the learning curve for 3 months but it seems like it's coming together.

Kz

fatality_uk

May 29th, 2009, 10:21 PM

Woooaaahhhh run. ZOMBIE thread :D

ilovelinux33467

June 16th, 2009, 06:49 PM

42824 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8564.521 FPS
53572 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10714.353 FPS
54944 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10988.780 FPS
55757 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11151.224 FPS
55719 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11143.760 FPS
54986 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10997.038 FPS
54726 frames in 5.0 seconds = 10945.184 FPS
55417 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11083.265 FPS
55602 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11120.244 FPS
55090 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11017.881 FPS

with a nvidia gtx 260 overclocked

markbuntu

June 16th, 2009, 09:23 PM

My HD3650

306 frames in 5.0 seconds = 61.109 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.067 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.008 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.104 FPS
300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.994 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.159 FPS

I can also make it do this.

6826 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1363.744 FPS
8081 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1615.419 FPS
11156 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2231.183 FPS
12993 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2598.515 FPS
11871 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2370.753 FPS

AMD6000X2 cpu, 6GB 800Mhz ram, TA790GX A2+ mobo

Screwdriver0815

June 16th, 2009, 09:39 PM

5015 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1002.852 FPS
4890 frames in 5.0 seconds = 977.818 FPS
3078 frames in 5.0 seconds = 614.969 FPS
3473 frames in 5.0 seconds = 694.248 FPS
5153 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1030.463 FPS
5018 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1003.485 FPS
5117 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1023.273 FPS
5043 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1008.225 FPS
5053 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1010.327 FPS
5124 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1024.681 FPS
5035 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1006.894 FPS
5039 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1007.734 FPS
5126 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1025.085 FPS
5117 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1023.348 FPS

its a Laptop with a Nvidia GeForce 7300 GO (don't know how much RAM the graphics card has). Processor Intel Pentium Dual Core 2,1 Ghz, 2 Gb RAM

Bölvaður

June 18th, 2009, 02:15 AM

whow is this thread still alive?

My friend is going to check his glxgear's output when he installs linux... just for that.
He got high end 4 GPUs. I am expecting 50.000 fps from him.

here are mine:

102842 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20568.342 FPS
102857 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20571.346 FPS
102823 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20564.510 FPS
102861 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20572.064 FPS

russo

August 14th, 2009, 12:03 AM

Intel i7 950 - 6Gb RAM - NVidia GTX260-216

without desktop effects enabled:
128332 frames in 5.0 seconds = 25666.385 FPS
124468 frames in 5.0 seconds = 24893.520 FPS
129869 frames in 5.0 seconds = 25973.753 FPS
129857 frames in 5.0 seconds = 25971.291 FPS
129844 frames in 5.0 seconds = 25968.800 FPS
129955 frames in 5.0 seconds = 25990.917 FPS

with desktop effects enabled:
56344 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11268.732 FPS
56368 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11273.456 FPS
55858 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11171.482 FPS
56555 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11310.932 FPS
55690 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11137.991 FPS
55790 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11157.891 FPS
56070 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11213.919 FPS

:-)

bichopro

August 14th, 2009, 12:13 AM

Mobile AMD Sempron(tm) Processor 3600+ with 2g of ram and a Nvidia GeForce 7000m

bichopro@bichopro-laptop:~$ glxgears
Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be
approximately 1/166575 the monitor refresh rate.
7890 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1577.992 FPS
8965 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1792.993 FPS
9529 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1905.734 FPS
9618 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1923.466 FPS
9678 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1935.432 FPS
9651 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1930.056 FPS
9601 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1920.100 FPS
9651 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1929.400 FPS
9642 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1928.357 FPS
9649 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1929.759 FPS
9521 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1904.199 FPS
9140 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1827.868 FPS
9251 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1850.090 FPS
9651 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1930.111 FPS
9598 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1919.568 FPS
9634 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1926.197 FPS
8979 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1795.732 FPS

pme 72

August 15th, 2009, 07:31 PM

Compaq AMD 3500+, ATI HD4550, 3GB ram, Jaunty 64, desktop effects not enabled, fglrx drivers:

13898 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2779.448 FPS
14187 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2837.333 FPS
14062 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2812.361 FPS
13013 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2602.543 FPS
20916 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4183.198 FPS

18319 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3663.697 FPS moved gears window
21641 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4328.111 FPS
21344 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4268.743 FPS
6949 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1389.330 FPS gears window to full screen
2541 frames in 5.0 seconds = 508.173 FPS
2539 frames in 5.0 seconds = 507.422 FPS
15046 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3008.741 FPS gears window restored
20572 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4114.356 FPS
21392 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4278.309 FPS

HD4550 with OS drivers in Jaunty 64: 261 FPS

HD4550 with OS drivers in Jaunty 32: 218 FPS

ATI x1550 OS drivers in Jaunty 64: 1314 FPS

ATI x1550 OS drivers in Intrepid 64: 1381

ATI x1550 fglrx drivers in Hardy 64: 2813

ATI x1550 OS drivers in Hardy 64: 866

Jimleko211

August 15th, 2009, 09:40 PM

46819 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9363.781 FPS
46478 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9295.437 FPS
46592 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9318.378 FPS
46688 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9337.599 FPS
45538 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9107.514 FPS
25812 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5162.379 FPS
41782 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8356.383 FPS
46654 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9330.730 FPS
37775 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7554.722 FPS
34856 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6970.998 FPS
35232 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7046.190 FPS

coldReactive

August 15th, 2009, 10:10 PM

Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be
approximately 1/533 the monitor refresh rate.
30859 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6171.745 FPS
33462 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6692.354 FPS
32623 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6524.553 FPS
32909 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6581.686 FPS
28051 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5610.189 FPS
22505 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4500.890 FPS (Loading Webpage)
25684 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5124.888 FPS
27586 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5517.134 FPS
29346 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5869.168 FPS
28370 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5673.729 FPS
30138 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6027.537 FPS
29786 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5957.028 FPS
29841 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5963.706 FPS
30017 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6003.104 FPS

nVidia GTS 250 1 GB Video RAM on 6 GB RAM with 3.00 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo

welcomebackss

August 25th, 2009, 07:36 PM

alphat@Alphat-PC ~ $ date
Wed Aug 26 02:03:48 CST 2009

alphat@Alphat-PC ~ $ glxgears
Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be
approximately 1/302 the monitor refresh rate.
93560 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18711.836 FPS
93646 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18729.178 FPS
93873 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18774.467 FPS
94241 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18848.068 FPS
94239 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18847.732 FPS
93335 frames in 5.0 seconds = 18666.844 FPS

alphat@Alphat-PC ~ $ emerge -V
Portage 2.1.6.13 (default/linux/amd64/2008.0, gcc-4.4.1, glibc-2.10.1-r0, 2.6.31-rc7 x86_64)

Alphat-PC alphat # lspci
00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation 4 Series Chipset DRAM Controller (rev 03)
00:01.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 4 Series Chipset PCI Express Root Port (rev 03)
00:1a.0 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801JI (ICH10 Family) USB UHCI Controller #4
00:1a.1 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801JI (ICH10 Family) USB UHCI Controller #5
00:1a.2 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801JI (ICH10 Family) USB UHCI Controller #6
00:1a.7 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801JI (ICH10 Family) USB2 EHCI Controller #2
00:1b.0 Audio device: Intel Corporation 82801JI (ICH10 Family) HD Audio Controller
00:1c.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801JI (ICH10 Family) PCI Express Port 1
00:1c.5 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801JI (ICH10 Family) PCI Express Port 6
00:1d.0 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801JI (ICH10 Family) USB UHCI Controller #1
00:1d.1 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801JI (ICH10 Family) USB UHCI Controller #2
00:1d.2 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801JI (ICH10 Family) USB UHCI Controller #3
00:1d.7 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801JI (ICH10 Family) USB2 EHCI Controller #1
00:1e.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801 PCI Bridge (rev 90)
00:1f.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation 82801JIR (ICH10R) LPC Interface Controller
00:1f.2 IDE interface: Intel Corporation 82801JI (ICH10 Family) 4 port SATA IDE Controller
00:1f.3 SMBus: Intel Corporation 82801JI (ICH10 Family) SMBus Controller
00:1f.5 IDE interface: Intel Corporation 82801JI (ICH10 Family) 2 port SATA IDE Controller
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation G94 [GeForce 9600 GT] (rev a1)
02:00.0 Ethernet controller: Attansic Technology Corp. Atheros AR8121/AR8113/AR8114 PCI-E Ethernet Controller (rev b0)

kzipz

September 7th, 2009, 03:19 PM

I have a question to run by the gpu-heads who are tuned into this page...

After tons of experimentation I found an xorg config that is working better as far as crystal-clear almost flawless GL rendering.

The strange this is that when I test glxgears I am getting 60 FPS consistently. I don't get it? Whenever I have had fast glxgears results I haven't had this quality of rendering.

here are the glxgear scores-

Desktop effects disabled-
304 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.743 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.008 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.008 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.008 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.008 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.056 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.008 FPS

Desktop effects enabled

300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.870 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.018 FPS
301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.834 FPS
300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.798 FPS
303 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.024 FPS
302 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.348 FPS
297 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.309 FPS

So my question is...what is the benefit of a highr frame rate when in the end the rendering is more exact and faster when the frame rate is slower?

any feedback will be appreciated. -cheers

-grubby

September 7th, 2009, 03:21 PM

[~] glxgears
Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be
approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate.
104111 frames in 5.0 seconds
104865 frames in 5.0 seconds
105147 frames in 5.0 seconds
100705 frames in 5.0 seconds
104787 frames in 5.0 seconds
103743 frames in 5.0 seconds

yuli_capone

September 7th, 2009, 03:48 PM

My laptop,intel Core 2 Duo 1,66 Ghz 2 GB RAM,Ati Radeon X1100

yuli@yuli-laptop:~$ glxgears
2021 frames in 5.0 seconds = 404.106 FPS
2008 frames in 5.0 seconds = 401.371 FPS
2016 frames in 5.0 seconds = 403.102 FPS
2042 frames in 5.0 seconds = 408.279 FPS
2015 frames in 5.0 seconds = 402.822 FPS
2025 frames in 5.0 seconds = 404.905 FPS
1961 frames in 5.0 seconds = 392.082 FPS
2033 frames in 5.0 seconds = 406.528 FPS
1834 frames in 5.0 seconds = 366.730 FPS
1550 frames in 5.0 seconds = 309.937 FPS
1968 frames in 5.0 seconds = 393.469 FPS
1670 frames in 5.0 seconds = 333.897 FPS
1881 frames in 5.0 seconds = 376.164 FPS

Whiffle

September 7th, 2009, 04:25 PM

andy@hobbes:~$ glxgears
108780 frames in 5.000 seconds = 21756.000 FPS
113027 frames in 5.000 seconds = 22605.400 FPS
113078 frames in 5.000 seconds = 22615.600 FPS
113114 frames in 5.000 seconds = 22622.801 FPS

Slackware64, nvidia 185 drivers, 9800GTX+, C2DE8400, KDE4, no effects running

#11u-max

September 7th, 2009, 05:13 PM

235 frames in 5.0 seconds
202 frames in 5.0 seconds
234 frames in 5.0 seconds
228 frames in 5.0 seconds
212 frames in 5.0 seconds
212 frames in 5.0 seconds
218 frames in 5.0 seconds
212 frames in 5.0 seconds
208 frames in 5.0 seconds
210 frames in 5.0 seconds
229 frames in 5.0 seconds
261 frames in 5.0 seconds
262 frames in 5.0 seconds
202 frames in 5.0 seconds
197 frames in 5.0 seconds
344 frames in 5.0 seconds
288 frames in 5.0 seconds
255 frames in 5.2 seconds
312 frames in 5.0 seconds
302 frames in 5.1 seconds
284 frames in 5.0 seconds
254 frames in 5.0 seconds
249 frames in 5.1 seconds
346 frames in 5.0 seconds
332 frames in 5.0 seconds
368 frames in 5.0 seconds
328 frames in 5.0 seconds
322 frames in 5.0 seconds
286 frames in 5.0 seconds
297 frames in 5.0 seconds
294 frames in 5.0 seconds
289 frames in 5.0 seconds
276 frames in 5.0 seconds
291 frames in 5.0 seconds
292 frames in 5.0 seconds
292 frames in 5.0 seconds
297 frames in 5.0 seconds
290 frames in 5.0 seconds
183 frames in 5.0 seconds
255 frames in 5.1 seconds
266 frames in 5.0 seconds
251 frames in 5.0 seconds
198 frames in 5.0 seconds
200 frames in 5.0 seconds
188 frames in 5.0 seconds

running compiz with every effect known to man and sone known to monkeys!

gears inside cube seem to run faster when running
$ glxgears

toupeiro

September 7th, 2009, 05:43 PM

24483 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4896.572 FPS
32056 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6411.085 FPS
28017 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5603.284 FPS
32548 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6509.591 FPS
28962 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5791.828 FPS
31290 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6257.439 FPS
30731 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6146.143 FPS

Vertical sync, twinview, 1/4 screen x.y, 180.44 drivers, GTX260-OC, KDE 4.3.0, Many effects enabled.

chris200x9

September 7th, 2009, 05:44 PM

31533 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6306.434 FPS
31463 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6292.588 FPS
30300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6059.934 FPS
31511 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6302.177 FPS
31571 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6314.125 FPS
31561 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6312.013 FPS
31340 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6267.966 FPS
31299 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6259.686 FPS
31349 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6269.624 FPS
31352 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6270.271 FPS
31517 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6303.397 FPS
31156 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6231.102 FPS
31443 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6288.433 FPS
41759 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8351.736 FPS < :O

gt8600 with q6600 on arch

Hells_Dark

September 7th, 2009, 05:46 PM

45477 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9095.087 fps
46549 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9309.742 fps
45792 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9158.083 fps
44960 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8991.986 fps
44894 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8978.744 fps
46539 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9307.748 fps

8800 gtx, q6600

toupeiro

September 7th, 2009, 06:05 PM

38566 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7711.828 FPS
41951 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8389.696 FPS
47552 frames in 5.0 seconds = 9510.385 FPS
42005 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8399.904 FPS
41086 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8217.102 FPS
43613 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8721.695 FPS
42036 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8407.173 FPS
41161 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8232.086 FPS
42529 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8505.742 FPS

Same test, same graphical environment, 190.32 NVidia driver. Fairly nice performance bump for a driver upgrade.

#11u-max

September 7th, 2009, 06:22 PM

why is mine in the hundreds and everyone else's is in the thousands?

coldReactive

September 7th, 2009, 06:24 PM

Mine again

42815 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8562.971 FPS
42740 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8547.968 FPS
41196 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8239.015 FPS
42797 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8559.196 FPS
43330 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8665.967 FPS
42994 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8598.576 FPS
43222 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8644.400 FPS
43225 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8644.805 FPS
43090 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8617.785 FPS
43263 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8652.397 FPS
43207 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8641.312 FPS
42602 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8520.400 FPS

toupeiro

September 7th, 2009, 06:26 PM

why is mine in the hundreds and everyone else's is in the thousands?

Could be plenty of reasons. What kind of vid card do you have? what version of driver are you using? What type of effects do you have on? Are you using Xgl or is it true compositing? If xgl, what kind of CPU and how much ram do you have?

#11u-max

September 7th, 2009, 06:34 PM

toupeiro

September 7th, 2009, 06:55 PM

Could be plenty of reasons. What kind of vid card do you have? NVidia GEforce 610M what version of driver are you using? propriatary driver from NVidia, not sure what version What type of effects do you have on? umm... desktop cube, cube transparency, cube gears, minimize/maximize/open/close animations were all being used at the time. Are you using Xgl or is it true compositing? i'm not sure... If xgl, what kind of CPU and how much ram do you have? [b]PROCESSOR: AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor TK-57 RAM: 1GB

610M was designed as a mobile GPU as I recall. You might check nvidia's website to see if they have a different recommendation for that mobile chipset.

driver: type nvidia-settings at a shell window. that will tell you the driver version you are using now. Then, follow the guide at the beginning of this thread to upgrade to a new mobile driver (if applicable)

xgl: at a command prompt, type glxinfo | grep direct

There will be a line that comes back that should say: direct rendering: Yes If it has anything after the Yes on the same line (like Software Rendering) then you are most likely using xgl. There may be better ways to identify this, but this is how I've done it.

If you are doing software rendering, your CPU/Ram has a whole lot more to do with your FPS than your GPU.

Those maximize/minimize settings can have a hefty performance penalty, especially if you are randomizing them.

Finally: the human eye is said to only be able to register 30FPS, so if you can maintain above 30FPS, then it shouldn't make a difference. based on your glxgears test, I'm going to assume doing anything full screen would have a noticeable penalty for you right now, but smaller animations are likely just fine.

#11u-max

September 7th, 2009, 07:08 PM

driver version is: 173.14.16

all it says after i run xglinfo | grep direct is: direct rendering: Yes

i'm randomizing the effects now, but i'm thinking about taking them off because they just increase the timeframe to close/open/minimise windows.

Mr Bean

September 7th, 2009, 07:40 PM

20226 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4045.050 FPS
20230 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4045.899 FPS
20239 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4047.689 FPS
20037 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4007.286 FPS
20207 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4041.305 FPS
20027 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4005.260 FPS
20226 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4045.196 FPS
20034 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4006.661 FPS

GeForce 8600GT 512MB DDR2

nVidia driver version: 180.44

HighlyDubious

September 13th, 2009, 07:03 AM

Visual Effects = None:
Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be
approximately 1/20145 the monitor refresh rate.
140932 frames in 5.0 seconds = 28186.359 FPS
140402 frames in 5.0 seconds = 28080.350 FPS
140549 frames in 5.0 seconds = 28109.783 FPS
140632 frames in 5.0 seconds = 28126.277 FPS
140358 frames in 5.0 seconds = 28071.525 FPS
140290 frames in 5.0 seconds = 28057.979 FPS
140420 frames in 5.0 seconds = 28083.938 FPS
140433 frames in 5.0 seconds = 28086.455 FPS

Visual Effects = Extras and
Compiz w/many options turned On:
Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be
approximately 1/20450 the monitor refresh rate.
66611 frames in 5.0 seconds = 13322.192 FPS
66517 frames in 5.0 seconds = 13303.376 FPS
66560 frames in 5.0 seconds = 13311.974 FPS
66312 frames in 5.0 seconds = 13262.354 FPS
66413 frames in 5.0 seconds = 13282.488 FPS
66251 frames in 5.0 seconds = 13250.157 FPS
66404 frames in 5.0 seconds = 13280.659 FPS
66245 frames in 5.0 seconds = 13249.000 FPS

System Specs:
ASUS Rampage II Gene
Intel i7 920 @ 2.66Ghz
6Gb Triple Channel RAM @ 1600Mhz
GeForce GTX 285 @ 266Mhz w/1Gb RAM
2 x 1680x1050 (Dual Head w/Twinview)
NVIDIA Driver 185.18.36
Jaunty (x64) w/Kernel 2.6.28-15-generic

Summary:
I'd say I'm fairly pleased with the results. Especially the 28k FPS. :D

A fast glance through the previous postings in this forum show me at 3rd place, following some guy who claimed to have written his own NVIDIA drivers, and a guy who didn't give any system specs. Several people posted higher numbers than my 13k, but most didn't give detailed specs, so it's hard to compare their results to mine.

Maybe I could nudge it up a bit more if tweak a few things (cut back to one monitor and lowered my display res). One guy said he got significantly better performance by switching to the server kernel. But why bother, I'm pleased with these numbers. :D

Exodist

September 13th, 2009, 07:40 AM

exodist@stardust:~$ glxgears
Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be
approximately 1/1559846 the monitor refresh rate.
18352 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3670.310 FPS
18519 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3703.669 FPS
18465 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3692.902 FPS
18508 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3701.593 FPS
18429 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3685.738 FPS
18495 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3698.844 FPS
18569 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3713.740 FPS
18122 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3624.309 FPS
18261 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3652.163 FPS
XIO: fatal IO error 11 (Resource temporarily unavailable) on X server ":0.0"
after 38 requests (38 known processed) with 0 events remaining.
exodist@stardust:~$

Here is mine, mind you my CPUs never topped out at 100% but both stayed around 50% load each.
I have a Radeon4850 and also running Compiz. Using ATI Catalyst 9.9 Drivers.

Pas_sa

October 14th, 2010, 10:24 AM

Thought I'd resurrect the thread. Just for comparison, here's my post from 2007:

I have the 100.19.04 drivers .. a Pentium 4 3.2Ghz (541), 2GB RAM and a Sparkle 320MB 8800GTS. I scored:

andrew@andrewdesktop:~$ glxgears
58461 frames in 5.0 seconds = 11692.069 FPS
61748 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12349.526 FPS
62580 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12515.795 FPS
62167 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12433.243 FPS
62601 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12520.012 FPS
Now running a Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.2GHz, 4GB RAM and a Galaxy 1GB GTX 285, with Ubuntu 10.10, and the 260.19.06 drivers. Compiz is enabled for this test, with 4xAA:

andrew@andrewdesktop:~$ glxgears
32277 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6455.290 FPS
32133 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6426.542 FPS
32508 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6501.562 FPS
32338 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6467.594 FPS
31946 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6387.999 FPS

Now with Compiz/desktop effects disabled, and AA disabled:

andrew@andrewdesktop:~$ glxgears
113246 frames in 5.0 seconds = 22649.165 FPS
113482 frames in 5.0 seconds = 22696.259 FPS
114228 frames in 5.0 seconds = 22845.583 FPS
113481 frames in 5.0 seconds = 22696.155 FPS
113800 frames in 5.0 seconds = 22759.878 FPS

To be expected I suppose! Games still lag with Compiz enabled.. hopefully one day Ubuntu can mimic the behaviour of Windows, which automatically disables its desktop compositor (Aero) when an OpenGL or DirectX application launches.

_outlawed_

October 14th, 2010, 12:05 PM

This is weird, my tests in 10.04 never synched it with my refresh rate. :O

daniel@daniel-laptop:~$ glxgears
Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be
approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate.
285 frames in 5.0 seconds = 56.974 FPS
296 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.059 FPS
296 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.138 FPS
297 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.284 FPS
291 frames in 5.0 seconds = 57.970 FPS
292 frames in 5.0 seconds = 58.257 FPS
295 frames in 5.0 seconds = 58.791 FPS
296 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.042 FPS
297 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.210 FPS
296 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.188 FPS

kaldor

October 14th, 2010, 03:40 PM

"nVidia Corporation G86 [GeForce 8400M GS] (rev a1)"

Using nVidia proprietary drivers on LMDE.

21563 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4312.560 FPS
21566 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4313.138 FPS
21576 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4315.062 FPS
21553 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4310.597 FPS
21496 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4299.187 FPS
21452 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4290.275 FPS
21257 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4251.235 FPS
21379 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4275.742 FPS
21344 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4268.754 FPS
21332 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4266.260 FPS
21316 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4263.016 FPS
21300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4259.813 FPS

NightwishFan

October 14th, 2010, 03:43 PM

Same here :)

288 frames in 5.0 seconds = 57.537 FPS

futz

October 14th, 2010, 05:11 PM

Oh man, it's been ages since I ran glxgears! Video card is a GTX-260.

futz@shiny:~$ glxgears
Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be
approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate.
49779 frames in 5.0 seconds
53137 frames in 5.0 seconds
55244 frames in 5.0 seconds
54131 frames in 5.0 seconds
49781 frames in 5.0 seconds
52174 frames in 5.0 seconds
53093 frames in 5.0 seconds
47648 frames in 5.0 seconds
54391 frames in 5.0 seconds
54548 frames in 5.0 seconds
52822 frames in 5.0 seconds
53321 frames in 5.0 seconds