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

Knoppix 3.3 beats Debian sid badly in glxgears



Hi all,

I've got a Dell D600 laptop with a ATI Radeon Mobility 9000 M9 graphics
card. I started out in october last year installing Knoppix 3.1 and
later 3.3 on it. At that time Knoppix was an appealing distribution, 
since it came with XFree 4.3.0.

It wasn't what I eventually wanted, however, and I switched to sid in 
January, which got XFree 4.3.0 a few weeks ago. This we all know.
Now, I am somewhat frustrated about the fact that Knoppix beats the shit
out of sid when it comes to glxgears performance. In terms of frames per 
second I get the following results

DRI |  Knoppix     Sid
----+------------------
yes |    1330      800
no  |     380      320

These results are obtained with Knoppix running from CD under KDE, and 
Sid running from the harddrive under fluxbox. I have tested several
kernels but get the same results both for Knoppix (when it was installed 
on the harddrive) and Sid. The only answer I currently can come up with 
is that XFree has been compiled with different levels of optimisation.  

Has anyone got a similar experience for their machine? Why not download 
Knoppix 3.3 from http://www.knoppix.org now and try it yourself? Knoppix 
run directly from CD.

I am quite anxious to get hold of the missing 500 frames.

Cheers
Paal


#--------------------------------
# Knoppix  XFree86.0.log snippet
#--------------------------------
XFree86 Version 4.3.0.1 (Debian 4.3.0-3 20040229223050 joshk@triplehelix.org)
Release Date: 15 August 2003
X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0, Release 6.6
Build Operating System: Linux 2.6.3-mm4 i686 [ELF] 
Build Date: 29 February 2004

#--------------------------------
# Sid      XFree86.0.log snippet
#--------------------------------
XFree86 Version 4.3.0 (Debian 4.3.0-0ds4 20030416150820 dstone@aedificator)
Release Date: 18 March 2003
X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0, Release 6.6
Build Operating System: Linux 2.4.21-pre5 i686 [ELF] 
Build Date: 16 April 2003



Reply to: