Difference between revisions of "Talk:Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 900"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
What is the openGL performance like on this card? Could I play UT2004 and run the OpenGL screensaver hacks at a reasonable speed. In comparison To say a Radeon 9000/9200 card? | What is the openGL performance like on this card? Could I play UT2004 and run the OpenGL screensaver hacks at a reasonable speed. In comparison To say a Radeon 9000/9200 card? | ||
| + | |||
| + | It was a pain to get it working under xorg, and once it was running, acceleration required it to be set to 16bit, at 1024x768x16 (a X41) the default glxgears shows ~1300fps, external monitor did not get acceleration (~600fps). And the ogl rendering seams to be buggy with missing textures here and there. I don't know how this translates to UT2004 performance , but you can probably run some opengl screensavers with no problem. | ||
| + | Hopefully xorg 6.9 and 7.0 will provide proper support. --[[User:Meta|Meta]] 23:01, 29 Nov 2005 (CET) | ||
Revision as of 23:01, 29 November 2005
What is the openGL performance like on this card? Could I play UT2004 and run the OpenGL screensaver hacks at a reasonable speed. In comparison To say a Radeon 9000/9200 card?
It was a pain to get it working under xorg, and once it was running, acceleration required it to be set to 16bit, at 1024x768x16 (a X41) the default glxgears shows ~1300fps, external monitor did not get acceleration (~600fps). And the ogl rendering seams to be buggy with missing textures here and there. I don't know how this translates to UT2004 performance , but you can probably run some opengl screensavers with no problem. Hopefully xorg 6.9 and 7.0 will provide proper support. --Meta 23:01, 29 Nov 2005 (CET)
