tictactoe, I believe those frame rates suggests that vsync is enabled,
limiting the rendering to the refresh rate of your screen. The same happens
here. Unfortunately, though, 3D and 2D graphics don't seem to be synced to
vblank, since I still notice tearing.
I'm using the same setup with you (Jau
VERY interesting. I am going to try this on my laptop tonight. What
is the procedure to fail back if the new driver has issues? Just
remove the backports repo, and reinstall original
xserver-xorg-video-intel from the main repo?
Jason
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Luciano Ziegler
wrote:
>
t: Re: [Bug 252094] Re: [i965, etc.] Poor graphics performance on Intel
Wow!
Luciano: That is backports for Jaunty 9.04or just plain Ibex 8.10?
(I guess you need a 2.6.28 kernel anyway)
What it your chipset?
I wonder if my eee 901 with Intel GME 945 will benefit from this improvement
also.
Still 7
Wow!
Luciano: That is backports for Jaunty 9.04or just plain Ibex 8.10?
(I guess you need a 2.6.28 kernel anyway)
What it your chipset?
I wonder if my eee 901 with Intel GME 945 will benefit from this improvement
also.
Still 700FPS is less than half the 1500FPS this driver achieved in the "good
Bryce wasn't getting mad. His point is that a bug report's usefulness
increases the more succinctly it can be written. Personally, I suspect
that the engineers at Intel and X.org, and Ubuntu are aware of the
current state of things.
Considering the prevalence of Intel graphics hardware, it co
I also agree, but there is nothing we can do, this bug report is just a
place to complain.
Some time ago (probably a year ago), someone or a group of people at intel
driver development, decided that they will throw away legacy driver code
(that was performing without so much user complaints as the
