I've compiled all of X with -march=athlon-tbird -O2 -mmmx -m3dnow -ftracer using modified flag variables in my host.conf as well as profile compiling which i had X up doing my thing for over a day learning my work load before recompiling it with the new data. My config settings for my matrox g450 are aggressive with agp enabled and backing store enabled, memory overclocked. Still though, my g450 is slow, slower than a G400...that's just the way it was made. There are lots of data on card performance in 3d-land as there are easy direct benchmarks. In 2d-land the only real benchmark i've seen is Xmark which uses x11perf which doesn't measure any realistic workload but rather all of X. But even using this, i've yet to find any real listing of which card is the fastest in 2d on a given system by any sites. This means i have to make a decision for nvidia or ati upgrades based on word of mouth which is hardly reliable. I know ati has more open source support and i'm leaning towards them but i'm not sure how much faster those cards would be on a modern system to see if it would be worth spending a hundred or so on a new video card. X is barable, yea, but i know efficiency wise, i'm being held back by this G450 despite all the support for using the backend scaler and triple buffering for video playback that i use often. I refuse to use the binary only drivers from any card maker so that aside, which card has the best xfree86 support these days while being the fastest, ati or nvidia? And are there any other 2d Xfree86 benchmarks out there that benchmark the functions and extensions actually used in X these days like render and shape and pixmap manipulation and all that stuff? Ok that's the end of my rant and questions.
_______________________________________________ XFree86 mailing list XFree86@xxxxxxxxxxx http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xfree86
