PDA

View Full Version : fx 5900 slower than 5700



JanHH
04-15-2004, 08:19 AM
Hello,

I just changed my old Geforce FX 5700 (non-ultra) for a FX 5900 XT and it is *slower* than the 5700.. how can this be? AGP setting stuff? Any idea?

Thanks
Jan

JanHH
04-15-2004, 03:38 PM
I just did some benchmarks, 3DMark03 and my linux/opengl application, both on the same computer, Athlon XP 2000+ with 512 ram. I know that 3DMark is direct3d but I simply wanted to know if maybe one of the graphics boards is broken (which does not seem to be the case). Results:

5900 XT:
3DMar03: 4508
linux/opengl: 26 fps

5700:
3DMark03: 2897
linux/opengl: 30

This is *very* weird, I think.. maybe driver problems?

Jan

jide
04-15-2004, 08:09 PM
it's possible that drivers are not optimized yet.
It's also possible that shaders impact a bit.

Did you tried your linux application under W32 ?

I can't say more.

JanHH
04-16-2004, 03:00 AM
but shaders should be faster on a 5900 than on a 5700 as well, *everything* should be faster, as it's basically the same card (and in the app the same shaders), only a faster flavour (at least that's what I think it should be).

A colleage of mine got a ?2500 high end quadro card which is slower than a 5950 ultra..

So do we have to wait for better drivers?

jide
04-16-2004, 09:03 AM
I think yes. We'll need to wait. In fact it appears shader language is not supported under Linux. And shaders are new very powerful means.

I don't know more.

JanHH
04-16-2004, 11:15 AM
But shader language (do you mean glslang?) not being supported under linux would impact both the 5700 and the 5900.. The program uses ARB_vertex_program and NV_fragment_program and it works fine. Any functionality that is not yet supported would affect both chips, so that does not explain why the faster one runs slower. Is there a Nvidia guy around here who knows more than we do?

04-19-2004, 07:34 PM
Have you tried comparing the speed of any other apps - perhaps some of the samples for the nvidia Linux SDK?

I am really curious to hear what you find - I have an old Ti4600 and was considering getting a Fx5900 SE. I like to do all my dev work in Linux, and am really curious to hear anything you find....

Thanks!

JanHH
04-20-2004, 04:18 AM
Is there an nvidia linux sdk? I will try this..

jide
04-20-2004, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by JanHH:
Is there an nvidia linux sdk? I will try this..Did you get the Nvidia drivers ? If not, here is simply why you encounter such horrible stats...

Get them on Nvidia website and install them.

JanHH
04-20-2004, 12:35 PM
Are you joking? How should I get 26 fps without nvidia drivers?

Yes of course I used the newest nv drivers (5336).. and glinfo says that there is a 5900 xt present.

However, the readme says that you need to have kernel sources present. I am not sure about that, but the install skript does not seem to try to build anything, and does not produce any error message, and it runs (even if slower than expected). What is this for?

Another point: Can someone with a working GF FX (which runs as fast as possible) probably post his/her XF86Config-File, or at least the relevant parts of it? Maybe there is a problem with this.. I still use the one I once created for running my gf 4200 ti (although, with the 5700, it seems to work without problems).

Jan

jide
04-20-2004, 03:40 PM
Well, have you got any kernel module that you (or your system automagically) load ?

What tells you lsmod | grep nv ? (you need to be root for this)

what tells you cat /proc/driver/nvidia/agp/status ?
and /proc/driver/nvidia/cards/0 ?

Finally, what is the demo you are testing ? What gl tests do you make with it ? Is it heavy newest gl 1.4 stuff ?

Hope this helps.

jide
04-20-2004, 03:43 PM
When talking about the SDK, <azcoder> was talking about the yes nvidia SDK, I didn't remember that.
Nvidia has an SDK that is in fact for W32, but most common things may work under LInux, if things didn't changed between.

JanHH
04-20-2004, 03:58 PM
There is a linux SDK you can download, it's about 42 MB and a little hard to find. But it needs so much stuff to compile (cg compiler etc.) that I did not accomplish to get it running yet.

The framerates are not from a demo but from the program I am working on which is a terrain engine, it looks like

http://de.geocities.com/westphj2003/scene1.jpg
http://de.geocities.com/westphj2003/scene2.jpg
http://de.geocities.com/westphj2003/refl.html
http://de.geocities.com/westphj2003/bumpmap.html

just to give you an idea of the complexity. It uses ARB_vertex_program and NV_fragment_program.

I can assure you that OpenGL works hardware accelerated, I am working with OpenGL + linux since 2001 and it always worked ;) .

console:

linux:/home/jan # lsmod | grep nv
nvidia 1966888 6 (autoclean)

linux:/home/jan # lsmod | grep NV
linux:/home/jan # cat /proc/driver/nvidia/agp/status
Status: Enabled
Driver: NVIDIA
AGP Rate: 4x
Fast Writes: Disabled
SBA: Disabled

linux:/home/jan # cat /proc/driver/nvidia/cards/0
Model: GeForce FX 5900
IRQ: 11
Video BIOS: 04.35.20.32.01
Card Type: AGP

Looks quite normal, doesn't it?

Regards and thx for helping,
Jan

jide
04-20-2004, 09:31 PM
Well, I don't know were is the cause of your problem then.

But:
Fast Writes: Disabled
SBA: Disabled

looks like a bit bad. Did you have that too before ? At least fw is enabled. But SBA could give more performances too. If both you motherboard and your card could support it, then you'd enabled them. However this may not be the source of your problem.

JanHH
04-21-2004, 04:42 AM
I also thought that this looks bad, but I have to admit that I do not even know what these options mean, and how to enable them. To check if I had that before, I have to change graphics cards again, which I do not feel like doing, I am afraid that changing them very often might damage one of them.

Can you post your XF86Config file (I assume that you are using nv/linux, too)?

JanHH
04-21-2004, 06:35 AM
Geforce 5700 non-ultra:

linux:/home/jan # lsmod | grep nv
nvidia 1966888 6 (autoclean)

linux:/home/jan # cat /proc/driver/nvidia/agp/status
Status: Enabled
Driver: AGPGART
AGP Rate: 4x
Fast Writes: Disabled
SBA: Disabled

linux:/home/jan # cat /proc/driver/nvidia/cards/0
Model: GeForce FX 5700
IRQ: 11
Video BIOS: 04.36.20.23.00
Card Type: AGP

looks the same but runs faster ;) . Isn't there any Nvidia driver guy around here who knows what happens?

Jan

JanHH
04-21-2004, 06:36 AM
ah.. it does NOT look the same. driver AGPGART. is this the reason? hmm.. I will see.

JanHH
04-21-2004, 07:15 AM
but changing this to AGPGART does not make the 5900 any faster :( . I'll stick with the 5700 until someone solves the problem.

jide
04-22-2004, 09:07 AM
To enable them it's best to have the source form of the drivers, not the rpm in fact, or at least the rpr sources.

JanHH
04-22-2004, 05:56 PM
but it seems to be ok with disabled as the 5700 runs with pleasant speed..

JanHH
04-25-2004, 05:45 PM
Now I had the same experience on another computer.. my geforce fx 5900 xt running slower than expected.

Is it possible that this card has an OpenGL problem anyway? In good old quake 2, timerefresh only was about 60 fps, whilst a radeon 9600 pro achieved 170 fps. or is this v-sync?

Jan

jide
04-26-2004, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by JanHH:
Now I had the same experience on another computer.. my geforce fx 5900 xt running slower than expected.

Is it possible that this card has an OpenGL problem anyway? In good old quake 2, timerefresh only was about 60 fps, whilst a radeon 9600 pro achieved 170 fps. or is this v-sync?

JanWell, I'm not sure if quake 2 is a good test for such a recent card in anyway.

And I don't know why your v-sync will works only with Nvidia but not with ATI...

Finally, FX 5xxx XT are like geforce 1,2,3,4 Mx,
so let's say light cpus. My Geforce 2 mx AGP 32
Mb DDR was slowler than a Geforce 1 AGP 32 Mo in
many situations.
If your card doesn't support an hardware stuff,
it will be by software I think.

What else could I say ?