Re: FC5, progression or regression?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 10:59:54PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Mike A. Harris (mharris@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > >a 3 GHz P4 processor for heaven's sake. It should run FC5 like the wind. > > > > That's why it is a test release, to find bugs. Don't use test releases
 > > if you expect flawless OS operation and perfect performance.
> > However, if it's *significantly* less performance, it could certainly
 > signify something that's wrong.

Current kernels still have slab debugging on (Because we still have
bugs that this is tripping up that need whacking).  The increased
overhead of this sucks up memory bandwidth, and I wouldn't be
surprised if shared-memory video chipsets feel some pain.
With glxgears, I see the gears update about 15 times in 10 seconds, and the results are (AMD athlon 2600+, 512ram, nvidia fx5600)# glxgears
888 frames in 5.4 seconds = 165.811 FPS
798 frames in 5.0 seconds = 158.416 FPS
912 frames in 5.7 seconds = 161.284 FPS
798 frames in 5.0 seconds = 158.274 FPS
798 frames in 5.1 seconds = 155.004 FPS
It's hard to tell if this is just a stobing effect ;-)

I think it was at least an order of magnitude higher in FC4 - from memory approximately 5000 f/s (but perhaps only with the nvidia (non-open) driver).

Bill: this would seem to fit the *significantly* term: is this what others see ? Dave: card is a separate memory (128MB) card: it seems that this may be expected until the debugging is disable ?

DaveT.

--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Photo Sharing]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]