ATI Drivers and SuSE 10
Well, I just updated my 64-bit machine to SuSE 10. Wow, it couldn't have been easier! Except... I'm having trouble finding my way to the tools necessary to get the 3D video driver working for my ATI Radeon 9550 video card. The release notes when I did the upgrade indicated that I could use YOU, but I'm not seeing how that works. Alternatively, it seems like I should be able to point YaST to a site that has SuSE rpms for the driver. Where should I go to get the file(s) I need to get this beastie to working? Thanks. -- Bill Lugg Milstar Software Support Peterson AFB, CO
I use nVidia and the driver installation was a snap however I found some information about installing the ATI drivers: http://www.susewiki.org/index.php?title=SUSE_10:_ATI_Driver_Installation On Saturday 26 November 2005 16:04, William H Lugg wrote:
Well, I just updated my 64-bit machine to SuSE 10. Wow, it couldn't have been easier!
Except... I'm having trouble finding my way to the tools necessary to get the 3D video driver working for my ATI Radeon 9550 video card. The release notes when I did the upgrade indicated that I could use YOU, but I'm not seeing how that works. Alternatively, it seems like I should be able to point YaST to a site that has SuSE rpms for the driver. Where should I go to get the file(s) I need to get this beastie to working?
Thanks. -- Bill Lugg Milstar Software Support Peterson AFB, CO
Hani wrote:
I use nVidia and the driver installation was a snap however I found some information about installing the ATI drivers: http://www.susewiki.org/index.php?title=SUSE_10:_ATI_Driver_Installation
On Saturday 26 November 2005 16:04, William H Lugg wrote:
Well, I just updated my 64-bit machine to SuSE 10. Wow, it couldn't have been easier!
Note, there is an x86_64 version of their driver. I would use the instructions in the link I sent earlier, as the wiki entry isn't correct anymore for a 64 bit machine (I am running 64 bit 9.3, with ATI ).
-- Joe Morris New Tribes Mission Email Address: Joe_Morris@ntm.org Registered Linux user 231871
William H Lugg wrote:
Well, I just updated my 64-bit machine to SuSE 10. Wow, it couldn't have been easier!
Except... I'm having trouble finding my way to the tools necessary to get the 3D video driver working for my ATI Radeon 9550 video card. The release notes when I did the upgrade indicated that I could use YOU, but I'm not seeing how that works. Alternatively, it seems like I should be able to point YaST to a site that has SuSE rpms for the driver. Where should I go to get the file(s) I need to get this beastie to working?
Being a binary only proprietary driver, http://www.atitech.com. For some very helpful instructions, http://www.suse.de/~sndirsch/ati-installer-HOWTO.html -- Joe Morris New Tribes Mission Email Address: Joe_Morris@ntm.org Registered Linux user 231871
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 16:04 -0700, William H Lugg wrote:
Well, I just updated my 64-bit machine to SuSE 10. Wow, it couldn't have been easier!
SNAP ! I just did this too !
Except... I'm having trouble finding my way to the tools necessary to get the 3D video driver working for my ATI Radeon 9550 video card.
There is a driver on the ATI site, and the "ATI Driver Installer" Version: 8.19.10 worked for me. BTW I have a X800 GTO.
The release notes when I did the upgrade indicated that I could use YOU, but I'm not seeing how that works.
I couldn't find anything there either, but previously I'de used the driver installer on my SuSE 9.2 box so I knew where to look on the ATI site (it's easy to find BTW, just follow the "LINUX DRIVERS & SOFTWARE" link on www.ati.com/support/driver.html Peter
On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 21:32 +0000, Peter Onion wrote:
Except... I'm having trouble finding my way to the tools necessary to get the 3D video driver working for my ATI Radeon 9550 video card.
There is a driver on the ATI site, and the "ATI Driver Installer" Version: 8.19.10 worked for me. BTW I have a X800 GTO.
Please post your respective framerates in glxgears and fgl_glxgears - I'm in the market for a card to play Quake4.... :-)
The release notes when I did the upgrade indicated that I could use YOU, but I'm not seeing how that works.
I couldn't find anything there either, but previously I'de used the driver installer on my SuSE 9.2 box so I knew where to look on the ATI site (it's easy to find BTW, just follow the "LINUX DRIVERS & SOFTWARE" link on www.ati.com/support/driver.html
Have a look at this: http://www.susewiki.org/index.php?title=SUSE_10:_ATI_Driver_Installation Installing the driver for my 9250 (the entrylevel model) using the installer package and this howto was easy. It's on a 32-bit system tho. Hans
I don't have time right now to get the number you requested, but will in a day or two. I would STRONGLY advise against the purchase of an ATI card. While I find performance to be fine, their support of Linux is not nearly as seemless as NVidia. The machine with the ATI card took about 30 minutes to get the video working properly on, and only after some much appreciated help from Joe Morris, also on this list. My other machine runs an NVidia card. I upgraded from 9.3 and ran YOU after it was done. One of the choices was to get the NVidia driver. I did it and in about 10 minutes she was up and running. FWIW, I also do some gaming in Windows (WW II simulations) and have found the ATI performance to be so so. Now, I don't have a comparable NVidia card to stick in the machine to try it, but I was certainly expecting more, based on the advertising. I'll try to get those numbers to you in the next couple of days. YMMV -- Bill Lugg Milstar Software Support Peterson AFB, CO On Monday 05 December 2005 1:08 am, H du Plooy wrote:
On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 21:32 +0000, Peter Onion wrote:
Except... I'm having trouble finding my way to the tools necessary to get the 3D video driver working for my ATI Radeon 9550 video card.
There is a driver on the ATI site, and the "ATI Driver Installer" Version: 8.19.10 worked for me. BTW I have a X800 GTO.
Please post your respective framerates in glxgears and fgl_glxgears - I'm in the market for a card to play Quake4.... :-)
The release notes when I did the upgrade indicated that I could use YOU, but I'm not seeing how that works.
I couldn't find anything there either, but previously I'de used the driver installer on my SuSE 9.2 box so I knew where to look on the ATI site (it's easy to find BTW, just follow the "LINUX DRIVERS & SOFTWARE" link on www.ati.com/support/driver.html
Have a look at this: http://www.susewiki.org/index.php?title=SUSE_10:_ATI_Driver_Installation
Installing the driver for my 9250 (the entrylevel model) using the installer package and this howto was easy. It's on a 32-bit system tho.
Hans
On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 23:14 -0700, William H Lugg wrote:
I don't have time right now to get the number you requested, but will in a day or two. I would STRONGLY advise against the purchase of an ATI card. While I find performance to be fine, their support of Linux is not nearly as seemless as NVidia. The machine with the ATI card took about 30 minutes to get the video working properly on, and only after some much appreciated help from Joe Morris, also on this list.
Everybody has their good and bad experience, and thus opinions on both cards. nVidia is ahead of ATi as far as the binary drivers go, simply because they've been doing it for longer. Way back when they started supplying the drivers, for the first couple of years, getting it running was a hit and miss affair. Search the list archives of 3-4 years ago and you'll see. nVidia's driver is quite good now, but I think the main reason why we're seeing so few problems with nVidia now is the way that SUSE has integrated the installation in YOU - I was blown away by how smooth that went. ATi has made a lot of progress, their drivers have gotten a lot better and the installation have gotten a lot easier. I just wish SUSE would put the same effort into integrating the ATi driver installer into YOU. -- Kind regards Hans du Plooy Technical Consultant SagacIT (Pty) Ltd hansdp@sagacit.com Office: 011 326 3950 Mobile: 084 220 2443 www.sagacit.com
Is there any particular reason, why you sent this message almost three years ago? According to the message, it was sent on Jan 6, 2003! ;-) H du Plooy wrote:
On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 23:14 -0700, William H Lugg wrote:
I don't have time right now to get the number you requested, but will in a day or two. I would STRONGLY advise against the purchase of an ATI card. While I find performance to be fine, their support of Linux is not nearly as seemless as NVidia. The machine with the ATI card took about 30 minutes to get the video working properly on, and only after some much appreciated help from Joe Morris, also on this list.
Everybody has their good and bad experience, and thus opinions on both cards.
nVidia is ahead of ATi as far as the binary drivers go, simply because they've been doing it for longer. Way back when they started supplying the drivers, for the first couple of years, getting it running was a hit and miss affair. Search the list archives of 3-4 years ago and you'll see.
nVidia's driver is quite good now, but I think the main reason why we're seeing so few problems with nVidia now is the way that SUSE has integrated the installation in YOU - I was blown away by how smooth that went.
ATi has made a lot of progress, their drivers have gotten a lot better and the installation have gotten a lot easier. I just wish SUSE would put the same effort into integrating the ATi driver installer into YOU.
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 19:33 -0500, James Knott wrote:
Is there any particular reason, why you sent this message almost three years ago? According to the message, it was sent on Jan 6, 2003! ;-) [snip] H du Plooy wrote:
On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 23:14 -0700, William H Lugg wrote:
Sorry James, everybody. My PC's motherboard blew and I replaced it, hence the wrong date. I set it, actually, on the first day, but the box has been up ever since, and I suspect linux doesn't (or didn't, at least) sync the hardware clock until you shut down. Had a power failure yesterday, so I guess that's why my time was back to 2003 again. Hans
On Thursday 08 Dec 2005 12:33 am, James Knott wrote:
Is there any particular reason, why you sent this message almost three years ago? According to the message, it was sent on Jan 6, 2003! ;-)
Perhaps he has only got a slow dial-up connection. ;-) Keith
I don't have time right now to get the number you requested, but will in a day or two. I would STRONGLY advise against the purchase of an ATI card. While I find performance to be fine, their support of Linux is not nearly as seemless as NVidia. The machine with the ATI card took about 30 minutes to get the video working properly on, and only after some much appreciated help from Joe Morris, also on this list. ========= As always, there are differing opinions about graphics cards. I went
My other machine runs an NVidia card. I upgraded from 9.3 and ran YOU after it was done. One of the choices was to get the NVidia driver. I did it and in about 10 minutes she was up and running.
FWIW, I also do some gaming in Windows (WW II simulations) and have found the ATI performance to be so so. Now, I don't have a comparable NVidia card to stick in the machine to try it, but I was certainly expecting more, based on the advertising.
I'll try to get those numbers to you in the next couple of days.
YMMV -- Bill Lugg Milstar Software Support Peterson AFB, CO ========== Bill not sure what problems you had, most probably trying to install the ATI drivers, but unless you had special needs or just had to have the drivers, it just doesn't take that long to configure an ATI. The ATI cards performance is easily comparable to the nVidia, so I do believe
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 01:14, William H Lugg wrote: through the nVidia fiasco a few times trying to get their drivers to work with different cards without success. There is hardly anyone here that runs a nVidia that hasn't had a problem one time or another with their drivers & cards. ATI simply works and their attitude towards Linux is good. If they weren't Linux friendly, then why are the ATI driver modules included with the kernel already? Setting up ATI in SUSE is just a matter of configuring graphics, either through YaST2 or sax2 from a terminal. The ATI cards just work! Except for the absolute latest models of cards, even those work with 2D, working with 3D is easy. The only time, I've found, that the ATI proprietary drivers need to be installed are when there are dual monitors or TV cards involved. Installing the new ATI drivers seems very painless to me anyway, install an RPM file, run sax2 and have fun. ------------------ the OP would be happy with either. regards, Lee
work with different cards without success. There is hardly anyone here that runs a nVidia that hasn't had a problem one time or another with their drivers & cards.
Hmmm I'm one of the people who has never had any problems with nVidia :-) ATI on the other hand... <shudder> God help you if you want to set up dual-head on an ATI card.
SUSE is just a matter of configuring graphics, either through YaST2 or sax2 from a terminal. The ATI cards just work!
Same for nVidia :-) C
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 21:33, BandiPat wrote:
As always, there are differing opinions about graphics cards.
Always.
I went through the nVidia fiasco a few times trying to get their drivers to work with different cards without success.
No question, Nvidia drivers appear to have "seasons" (2004 was a "bad" year for drivers), but I admit bafflement at your claim of having no luck with Nvidia while having a stellar experience with ATI. Their drivers are the least stable and compatible drivers I've ever used. No question, they used to be literally *unusable*, even on Windows IMHO, and they've come a ways, but they still don't have the quality assurance that usually comes with NVidia's. I can't explain why you've had such a different experience from almost everyone I know, except really good luck. I'd never recommend an ATI card to someone working in a professional 3D environment. Cheers, J.C. -- John Coldrick www.axyzfx.com Axyz Animation 416-504-0425 425 Adelaide St W Toronto, ON Canada jc@axyzfx.com M5V 1S4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Nobody said computers were going to be polite.
Here they are... glxgears: 1560 frames in 5.0 seconds = 312.000 FPS fgl_glxgears: I doesn't seem to work. Following is the error returned. Using GLX_SGIX_pbuffer X Error of failed request: BadLength (poly request too large or internal Xlib length error) Major opcode of failed request: 16 (X_InternAtom) Serial number of failed request: 26 Current serial number in output stream: 29 I'm not sure what that means. -- Bill Lugg Milstar Software Support Peterson AFB, CO On Monday 05 December 2005 1:08 am, H du Plooy wrote:
On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 21:32 +0000, Peter Onion wrote:
Except... I'm having trouble finding my way to the tools necessary to get the 3D video driver working for my ATI Radeon 9550 video card.
There is a driver on the ATI site, and the "ATI Driver Installer" Version: 8.19.10 worked for me. BTW I have a X800 GTO.
Please post your respective framerates in glxgears and fgl_glxgears - I'm in the market for a card to play Quake4.... :-)
The release notes when I did the upgrade indicated that I could use YOU, but I'm not seeing how that works.
I couldn't find anything there either, but previously I'de used the driver installer on my SuSE 9.2 box so I knew where to look on the ATI site (it's easy to find BTW, just follow the "LINUX DRIVERS & SOFTWARE" link on www.ati.com/support/driver.html
Have a look at this: http://www.susewiki.org/index.php?title=SUSE_10:_ATI_Driver_Installation
Installing the driver for my 9250 (the entrylevel model) using the installer package and this howto was easy. It's on a 32-bit system tho.
Hans
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 21:26, William H Lugg wrote:
Here they are... glxgears: 1560 frames in 5.0 seconds = 312.000 FPS fgl_glxgears: I doesn't seem to work. Following is the error returned. Using GLX_SGIX_pbuffer X Error of failed request: BadLength (poly request too large or internal Xlib length error) Major opcode of failed request: 16 (X_InternAtom) Serial number of failed request: 26 Current serial number in output stream: 29
I'm not sure what that means. -- Bill Lugg Milstar Software Support Peterson AFB, CO [...] ======== Bill, When are you going to enable 3D for that card? Not sure what model card you have, but from testing on an ATI card, the results you have are for 2D only using MESA rendering. Enabling 3D will increase your numbers 5-7 times over those numbers. At least that's what I get with my 9200 using the built-in ATI modules provided by SuSE's kernel.
Lee
I guess I not sure how to do this. I start SaX2 through YaST and it shows the card as a ATI RV350 AS (it's a 9250, BTW). But there doesn't seem to be anything that turns on 3D support. Where should I be looking that I'm not? -- Bill Lugg Milstar Software Support Peterson AFB, CO On Tuesday 06 December 2005 7:39 pm, BandiPat wrote:
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 21:26, William H Lugg wrote:
Here they are... glxgears: 1560 frames in 5.0 seconds = 312.000 FPS fgl_glxgears: I doesn't seem to work. Following is the error returned. Using GLX_SGIX_pbuffer X Error of failed request: BadLength (poly request too large or internal Xlib length error) Major opcode of failed request: 16 (X_InternAtom) Serial number of failed request: 26 Current serial number in output stream: 29
I'm not sure what that means. -- Bill Lugg Milstar Software Support Peterson AFB, CO
[...] ======== Bill, When are you going to enable 3D for that card? Not sure what model card you have, but from testing on an ATI card, the results you have are for 2D only using MESA rendering. Enabling 3D will increase your numbers 5-7 times over those numbers. At least that's what I get with my 9200 using the built-in ATI modules provided by SuSE's kernel.
Lee
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 23:23, William H Lugg wrote:
I guess I not sure how to do this. I start SaX2 through YaST and it shows the card as a ATI RV350 AS (it's a 9250, BTW). But there doesn't seem to be anything that turns on 3D support.
Where should I be looking that I'm not? -- Bill Lugg Milstar Software Support Peterson AFB, CO ========== Are you using the ATI driver or not? If you are, there are other things you need to do to get it to use the built-in kernel module. If not, follow this procedure:
ctrl-alt-F1 login as root init 3 sax2 -r (you'll turn on 3D there) finish, test, quit back to prompt init 5 You should now have 3D enabled. Use these commands to check glxinfo (check if Direct Rendering is yes) 3dinfo (gives you the card info) lastly, glxgears Lee
OK, here's what I did. I went to ATI's web site and downloaded the file ati-driver-installer-8.20.8-x86_64.run. I followed the instructions on the Installation Instructions page using the Automatic option. I then ran the fglrxconfig file that the instructions pointed to, answered the questions and restarted the machine. Everthing seems to be working. I'm getting frame rates upwards of 2500 FPS and glxinfo indicates that Direct Rendering is set to yes. However, 3dinfo returns nothing. Further sax2 -r displays the dialog showing the card as I described earlier, but the checkbox at the bottom of the dialog is disabled and not checked. So, I seem to be getting the performance improvement you suggested I'd see, but there still seems to be something strange going on with 3D support. Any thoughts? Thanks. -- Bill Lugg Milstar Software Support Peterson AFB, CO On Tuesday 06 December 2005 9:38 pm, BandiPat wrote:
Are you using the ATI driver or not? If you are, there are other things you need to do to get it to use the built-in kernel module. If not, follow this procedure:
ctrl-alt-F1 login as root init 3 sax2 -r (you'll turn on 3D there) finish, test, quit back to prompt init 5
You should now have 3D enabled. Use these commands to check glxinfo (check if Direct Rendering is yes) 3dinfo (gives you the card info) lastly, glxgears
Lee
On Friday 09 December 2005 12:43 am, William H Lugg wrote:
I then ran the fglrxconfig file that the instructions pointed to, answered the questions and restarted the machine. Everthing seems to be working.
I'm getting frame rates upwards of 2500 FPS and glxinfo indicates that Direct Rendering is set to yes. However, 3dinfo returns nothing. Further sax2 -r displays the dialog showing the card as I described earlier, but the checkbox at the bottom of the dialog is disabled and not checked.
So, I seem to be getting the performance improvement you suggested I'd see, but there still seems to be something strange going on with 3D support.
And I told you not to expect to see anything out of Sax2 or probably anywhere else. The FPS is the thing... Nothing else counts.
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 22:43 -0700, William H Lugg wrote:
I then ran the fglrxconfig file that the instructions pointed to, answered the questions and restarted the machine. Everthing seems to be working. That pretty much whacks the SUSE xorg.conf file, so some other things get borken in the process (at least the last time I tried).
I'm getting frame rates upwards of 2500 FPS and glxinfo indicates that Direct Rendering is set to yes. However, 3dinfo returns nothing. Further sax2 -r displays the dialog showing the card as I described earlier, but the checkbox at the bottom of the dialog is disabled and not checked. the fglrx driver *only* does 3D mode, that checkbox is irrelevant in this case
If you get that sort of framerate, and you can run your 3D apps, then your setup is most probably working fine. Hans
On Friday 09 December 2005 00:43, William H Lugg wrote:
OK, here's what I did. I went to ATI's web site and downloaded the file ati-driver-installer-8.20.8-x86_64.run. I followed the instructions on the Installation Instructions page using the Automatic option.
I then ran the fglrxconfig file that the instructions pointed to, answered the questions and restarted the machine. Everthing seems to be working.
I'm getting frame rates upwards of 2500 FPS and glxinfo indicates that Direct Rendering is set to yes. However, 3dinfo returns nothing. Further sax2 -r displays the dialog showing the card as I described earlier, but the checkbox at the bottom of the dialog is disabled and not checked.
So, I seem to be getting the performance improvement you suggested I'd see, but there still seems to be something strange going on with 3D support.
Any thoughts?
Thanks. -- Bill Lugg ======
Sounds like you got it going Bill. The instructions from the ATI site seem to be the one's to follow in getting things working good. Your resulting frame rates are very good for 3D. I forgot what card you have, 9250 or? Once you use ATI's configuration program, fglrxconfig, pretty much forget about sax2 as it will possibly only mess things up as they are set. Remember too, should you install or update the kernel, you'll have to go thru the install again, just as the nVidia users do, because it removes the ATI modules you just installed. Enjoy your 3D now. I think you'll be pleased with the results you get for graphics now. regards, Lee
I think it's a 9550. I'm afraid I kind of lost track now. It seems to be running well now. Thanks. for the help. -- Bill Lugg Milstar Software Support Peterson AFB, CO On Friday 09 December 2005 7:28 pm, BandiPat wrote:
Sounds like you got it going Bill. The instructions from the ATI site seem to be the one's to follow in getting things working good. Your resulting frame rates are very good for 3D. I forgot what card you have, 9250 or? Once you use ATI's configuration program, fglrxconfig, pretty much forget about sax2 as it will possibly only mess things up as they are set. Remember too, should you install or update the kernel, you'll have to go thru the install again, just as the nVidia users do, because it removes the ATI modules you just installed.
Enjoy your 3D now. I think you'll be pleased with the results you get for graphics now.
regards, Lee
On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 22:19 -0700, William H Lugg wrote:
I think it's a 9550. I'm afraid I kind of lost track now. It seems to be running well now.
Thanks. for the help.
They even work fine on SuSE 10.0 on an AMD_64. Card is a PCI-E X800GTO Peter
William H Lugg wrote:
I guess I not sure how to do this. I start SaX2 through YaST and it shows the card as a ATI RV350 AS (it's a 9250, BTW). But there doesn't seem to be anything that turns on 3D support.
Where should I be looking that I'm not? -- Bill Lugg Milstar Software Support Peterson AFB, CO
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 7:39 pm, BandiPat wrote:
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 21:26, William H Lugg wrote:
Here they are... glxgears: 1560 frames in 5.0 seconds = 312.000 FPS fgl_glxgears: I doesn't seem to work. Following is the error returned. Using GLX_SGIX_pbuffer X Error of failed request: BadLength (poly request too large or internal Xlib length error) Major opcode of failed request: 16 (X_InternAtom) Serial number of failed request: 26 Current serial number in output stream: 29
I'm not sure what that means. -- Bill Lugg Milstar Software Support Peterson AFB, CO
[...] ======== Bill, When are you going to enable 3D for that card? Not sure what model card you have, but from testing on an ATI card, the results you have are for 2D only using MESA rendering. Enabling 3D will increase your numbers 5-7 times over those numbers. At least that's what I get with my 9200 using the built-in ATI modules provided by SuSE's kernel.
Lee
I am in the market for a graphics card so I followed your posts. Here is what I found: There is more info about the ATI RV350AS on the web than you will ever find on the STI site. Proprietary Drivers needed - not available as Open Souce -- for RV350AS chipset. I can't really dope this out, but maybe it will make sense to you. Drivers for Linux are available. http://linux.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/comp.os.linux.hardware/2005-04/0394.ht... Lee -- if what I found is non-sense (it was good in April) then please tell Bill not to take off on the stuff I found. Lonn
On Wednesday 07 December 2005 00:10, Lonn wrote: [...]
I am in the market for a graphics card so I followed your posts.
Here is what I found: There is more info about the ATI RV350AS on the web than you will ever find on the STI site.
Proprietary Drivers needed - not available as Open Souce -- for RV350AS chipset.
I can't really dope this out, but maybe it will make sense to you. Drivers for Linux are available.
http://linux.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/comp.os.linux.hardware/2005-04/ 0394.html
Lee -- if what I found is non-sense (it was good in April) then please tell Bill not to take off on the stuff I found.
Lonn ========== Lonn, I do believe this site is outdated and the 9550 card should be fully supported with the included SUSE kernel modules.
Yes, the ATI drivers are available, if needed. Lee
On Wednesday 07 December 2005 12:10 am, Lonn wrote:
William H Lugg wrote:
I guess I not sure how to do this. I start SaX2 through YaST and it shows the card as a ATI RV350 AS (it's a 9250, BTW). But there doesn't seem to be anything that turns on 3D support.
Where should I be looking that I'm not? -- Bill Lugg Milstar Software Support Peterson AFB, CO
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 7:39 pm, BandiPat wrote:
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 21:26, William H Lugg wrote:
Here they are... glxgears: 1560 frames in 5.0 seconds = 312.000 FPS fgl_glxgears: I doesn't seem to work. Following is the error returned. Using GLX_SGIX_pbuffer X Error of failed request: BadLength (poly request too large or internal Xlib length error) Major opcode of failed request: 16 (X_InternAtom) Serial number of failed request: 26 Current serial number in output stream: 29
I'm not sure what that means. -- Bill Lugg Milstar Software Support Peterson AFB, CO
[...] ======== Bill, When are you going to enable 3D for that card? Not sure what model card you have, but from testing on an ATI card, the results you have are for 2D only using MESA rendering. Enabling 3D will increase your numbers 5-7 times over those numbers. At least that's what I get with my 9200 using the built-in ATI modules provided by SuSE's kernel.
Lee
I am in the market for a graphics card so I followed your posts.
Here is what I found: There is more info about the ATI RV350AS on the web than you will ever find on the STI site.
Proprietary Drivers needed - not available as Open Souce -- for RV350AS chipset.
I can't really dope this out, but maybe it will make sense to you. Drivers for Linux are available.
http://linux.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/comp.os.linux.hardware/2005-04/0394.h tml
Lee -- if what I found is non-sense (it was good in April) then please tell Bill not to take off on the stuff I found.
I'm running SuSE 10.0 and have a RV350 AP [Radeon 9600]. I went to the ATI website and downloaded: fglrx_6_8_0-8.18.6-1.i386.rpm I installed it, read the README and ran the procedure to create a new /etc/xorg.conf file. (save the old one first!) Restarted the X server and I am getting a framerate of 2,000 ++ Note: the above procedures were outlined on this list over a month ago. If you follow the procedures, DO NOT go into YAST and expect to enable 3D. It won't let you and it is not necessary. Just check the framerate with glxgears.
There may have been problems in the past with installing the ATI proprietary driver, but for me these days it has all worked VERY easily: To install (as root): - go to the ATI site and download the ati-driver-installer for linux - run it with 'sh' and generate the .rpm for SuSE 10.0 - use 'rpm' to install the generated .rpm file - the only difficulty might be in needing to use fglrxconfig (with all those questions) to set up xorg.conf for the driver. But once I had a xorg.conf (which I checked against the configuration file I had been using before) that worked with the ATI driver, I haven't bothered to run fglrxconfig again, despite subsequent kernel and driver upgrades. Note: do __not__ use SaX (or YaST) to edit the xorg configuration - they will screw up what the ATI driver needs. Or after upgrading the SuSE kernel (as root): - configure the kernel sources (excerpt) - cd /usr/src/linux - rm -f .config - make cloneconfig - make prepare-all - run 'fglrx-kernel-build.sh' To verify (following a reboot): - run 'fglrxinfo'. If it says 'ATI', the driver is installed and working; if it says 'Mesa', the driver install failed somewhere. - proof of the pudding: run 'glxgears' and check the frame rate mikus
Yesterday I installed SuSE 10.0 (32-bit) on a new Dell Dimension 9150. While all turned out ok in the end, there were a couple of traps along the way. System: Pentium D (Dual Core) 3.0 GHz 4 GB RAM Radeon X600 Graphics Card 24" Wide Screen Monitor 2 x 300 GB SATA drives Onboard Intel Gigabit ethernet controller (82573L) CD-RW, DVD-/+R 1. I wanted to run the drives in SATA mode, not compatibility mode. I found out (after MUCH trial and error) that I needed to use the 'irqpoll' kernel parameter during the install. 2. After the initial install, I re-booted and when KDE/X started, all I got was a blank screen. Not only was the screen blank, the whole system was locked. I couldn't even switch to a virtual console to diagnose the problem. So, I ran the rescue system, mounted my installation to /mnt and did a 'chroot'/mnt'. I ran YaST to change the window manager to 'console' and re-booted. Now I had a console to work with. Long story short, I had set the resolution of my monitor to 1920 x 1200 and X.org barfed at that. I fixed the problem by downloading the fglrx driver from ATI, building the driver, running fglrxconfig, changing the window manager back to 'kdm,' and re-booted. Got a VERY nice screen this time (1600 x 1200 - fglrx doesn't support 1920 x 1200 -- oh well). 3. Once I had Linux running, I found out I had no ethernet connection! To make another long story short, the e1000 driver that ships with SuSE 10.0 didn't support the Intel 82573L chip. I downloaded source for the e1000 driver from Intel, compiled and installed, and it worked right out of the box. 4. On the 'good news side,' I have my drives running in SATA model (with AHCI), nice 1,600 x 1,200 display, and I am connected to the internet! I've just begun testing this configuration, and I must say that I am VERY impressed with the dual-core technology. SuSE 10.0 correctly detected my two processors and loaded the bigsmp kernel. I have one scientific application for which I can select the number of processors. With one processor, the program runs in 62 seconds with 99.5% utilization of one processor. With two processors, the program runs in 38 seconds with 85-90% utilization of both processors. I hope this short review helps anyone considering buying a Dimension 9150 for Linux. If I had to do it over, I would probably not have fiddled with SATA and gone to compatibility mode. And, I would have gotten an nVidia card rather than ATI. (But this is my wife's computer -- I just popped in a second hard drive to run Linux when she's not around!) Buddy Coffey Advanced Electromagnetics
participants (14)
-
BandiPat -
Bruce Marshall -
Buddy Coffey -
Clayton -
H du Plooy -
Hani -
James Knott -
Joe Morris (NTM) -
John Coldrick -
Keith Powell -
Lonn -
mikus＠bga.com -
Peter Onion -
William H Lugg