I can't help but think I still have something wrong. Is it reasonable
that a Elite3D m3 frame buffer would not perform as well as the stock
PGX32 frame buffer in my U5?

When sliding windows around on my U5 the contents of the windows stay
legible and there's no "flickering" of the screen contents. Nice and
smooth. However there is flickering and trailing window frames on my
U60 (using CDE or Gnome) with the Elite3D card, which I assume is a
superior frame buffer. Even moving the mouse cursor around the screen
shows a noticable staggered difference.

I have patch 112620-09 installed. And I have tried the tips for
speeding up Gnome 2.0....even though the problem is with either CDE or
Gnome.

Could this just be the way it is, and as good as it gets?

Thanks,
Rob

Would a SB1000, which I was toying around with purchasing, give the
same performance.....or is that way too generic of a question seeing I
am not specifying which frame buffer it would have?

On 18 Jul 2004 18:53:25 -0700
newsgroups@raincode.net (Robert Mazur) wrote:

> I can't help but think I still have something wrong. Is it reasonable
> that a Elite3D m3 frame buffer would not perform as well as the stock
> PGX32 frame buffer in my U5?

No. It should be a lot faster.

> When sliding windows around on my U5 the contents of the windows stay
> legible and there's no "flickering" of the screen contents. Nice and
> smooth. However there is flickering and trailing window frames on my
> U60 (using CDE or Gnome) with the Elite3D card, which I assume is a
> superior frame buffer. Even moving the mouse cursor around the screen
> shows a noticable staggered difference.

I've just been sliding a RealPlayer window over the desktop, and
as long as I'm not flicking the cursor from one corner of the
screen to another, the movement is quite smooth. To have no
jitter at all, the mouse has to move fairly slowly, but at no
times there are trails, or loss of legibility. This is with a
custom background (a 1280x960 photograph). It's not noticeably
worse than dragging a similarly-sized window around on a 1.4GHz
Windows XP machine. Cursor movement is perfectly fluid and there's
no visible lag. My machine is a U60, with dual 360MHz processors
and dual Elite3D m3 framebuffers.

> I have patch 112620-09 installed. And I have tried the tips for
> speeding up Gnome 2.0....even though the problem is with either CDE or
> Gnome.
>
> Could this just be the way it is, and as good as it gets?

I don't think so. You should run some tests (like x11perf) and
post the results.

> Would a SB1000, which I was toying around with purchasing, give the
> same performance.....or is that way too generic of a question seeing I
> am not specifying which frame buffer it would have?

With the same frame buffer, it should be faster than your U60 ;-)


--
Stefaan
--
"What is stated clearly conceives easily." -- Inspired sales droid

In article <20040719110710.47b3df11.tengo@deletemeecc.lu>,
Stefaan A Eeckels <tengo@DELETEMEecc.lu> writes:
> On 18 Jul 2004 18:53:25 -0700
> newsgroups@raincode.net (Robert Mazur) wrote:
>
>> I can't help but think I still have something wrong. Is it reasonable
>> that a Elite3D m3 frame buffer would not perform as well as the stock
>> PGX32 frame buffer in my U5?
>
> No. It should be a lot faster.
>
>> When sliding windows around on my U5 the contents of the windows stay
>> legible and there's no "flickering" of the screen contents. Nice and
>> smooth. However there is flickering and trailing window frames on my
>> U60 (using CDE or Gnome) with the Elite3D card, which I assume is a
>> superior frame buffer. Even moving the mouse cursor around the screen
>> shows a noticable staggered difference.
>
> I've just been sliding a RealPlayer window over the desktop, and
> as long as I'm not flicking the cursor from one corner of the
> screen to another, the movement is quite smooth. To have no
> jitter at all, the mouse has to move fairly slowly, but at no
> times there are trails, or loss of legibility. This is with a
> custom background (a 1280x960 photograph). It's not noticeably
> worse than dragging a similarly-sized window around on a 1.4GHz
> Windows XP machine. Cursor movement is perfectly fluid and there's
> no visible lag. My machine is a U60, with dual 360MHz processors
> and dual Elite3D m3 framebuffers.

With most framebuffers, mouse cursor motion on Suns is not dependent
on the X server (although using the proper cursor for the window is,
so if you move the mouse cursor from an xterm to the background (or
vise versa) and it doesn't change, that's an indicator that the X
server is not responding just then. Anyway, getting smooth mouse
cursor motion doesn't say much about performance on a Sun.

[...]

--
mailto:rlhamil@smart.net http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:16:29 -0000
Richard.L.Hamilton@mindwarp.smart.net (Richard L. Hamilton) wrote:

> In article <20040719110710.47b3df11.tengo@deletemeecc.lu>,
> Stefaan A Eeckels <tengo@DELETEMEecc.lu> writes:
> > Cursor movement is perfectly fluid and there's no visible lag.
>
> With most framebuffers, mouse cursor motion on Suns is not dependent
> on the X server (although using the proper cursor for the window is,
> so if you move the mouse cursor from an xterm to the background (or
> vise versa) and it doesn't change, that's an indicator that the X
> server is not responding just then. Anyway, getting smooth mouse
> cursor motion doesn't say much about performance on a Sun.

Granted, but _not_ getting smooth mouse cursor motion might
be an indication that there's something amiss with the OP's
Elite3D m3 frame buffer or his system:

> > On 18 Jul 2004 18:53:25 -0700
> > newsgroups@raincode.net (Robert Mazur) wrote:
> > > Even moving the mouse cursor around the screen
> > > shows a noticable staggered difference.

Or maybe he's comparing with an AMD64 with a Radeon 9800 :-)

Take care,

--
Stefaan
--
"What is stated clearly conceives easily." -- Inspired sales droid

Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:16:29 -0000
>
>
> Or maybe he's comparing with an AMD64 with a Radeon 9800 :-)
>
> Take care,
>

Nah...I wish I were comparing to that! But my comparison is only to a
U5 I have next to the U60 in question. The U5 is smooth, and the
U60.....not very smooth.

Rob