-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Monday 2006-10-23 at 17:18 +1000, Basil Chupin wrote: > Even though I merely glanced over your original post, one thing which > now comes to mind is that I believe you mentioned there that you are > using an MX400 card and the results you got were for that card? Am I > correct? Right. > > If so then you had better read the blurb on the nVidia site about what > is supported by the latest drivers. I am pretty sure that the MX 400 is > not supported and that one has to go back to a much earlier driver for > the MX 400 card. It is supported, it is listed here: http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_18897.html: Back Supported Products List GeForce2 Go 0x0112 GeForce2 Integrated GPU 0x01A0 GeForce2 MX 100/200 0x0111 ===> GeForce2 MX/MX 400 0x0110 GeForce3 0x0200 The log says it detects it as: (II) NVIDIA(0): NVIDIA GPU GeForce2 MX/MX 400 at PCI:1:0:0 > Some months ago someone had a question about the MX > 400/(?)440 and I pointed this out to him at the time. Yes, I read that mail the other day, I searched the list. Anyhow, I did try the "legacy driver", x86-1.0-7184 (published las august), and it is as slow, with the added problem that text mode doesn't work after starting graphics: I only see strange colours. > > (BTW, I am using a 6600 card and glxgears is showing ~3891 fps.) And the main cpu usage? Mine goes to 100%, and that is what I don't consider normal. I can't be certain, of course, but I think I got more two years back than now with the same hardware. I'll have to go back and try in SuSE 9.3 or earlier. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFFO4KJtTMYHG2NR9URAuH8AKCDqpY7XW+7rg3i2l5xXTZHPLyqKACfcbEP YAaj4r9RKZTmqtxKRp9GImM= =Bx/q -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
/Peo Registered Linux user #432116
|