asdf
join:2002-09-07
| reply to asdf
Re: Troubleshooting X performance problems?
Thanks for the replies.
benyto: I do suspect that the non-opaque window moves would indeed eliminate the performance problems (I checked, and they in fact do). However, the problem isn't just in moving windows -- it seems to be anything that renders to the screen in general. For example, if I open a firefox window in one virtual desktop, switch to another to do some work over there, and then switch back to firefox, there is noticeable lag in the rendering of the window. Nothing that prevents me from getting work done, but noticeable enough to be annoying. And yes, I do see the same problem when scrolling a web browser -- looks like anything that renders to the screen will lag. Do you suspect that it's a problem with my CPU settings or my GPU settings?
yazdzik: Yes, your graphs do reflect what I'm seeing. It's not the CPU spike per se that I'm concerned about -- it's that scrolling and moving windows around feels sluggish. If I'm moving a window around in front of a firefox window, I can see a trail left behind from my moving window (similar to what you might see when firefox hangs). If I have a couple (2-3 windows) open in a virtual desktop, and I switch to that desktop, I can see the windows rendering one at a time. It happens quickly, but it should not take so long to render 3 plain xterms on a plain black background... |
|
benyto
Premium
join:2000-07-09
Chico, CA
| Try playing with the InitialPixmapPlacement setting available with the nvidia-settings command to see if it makes any difference in the performance. From a terminal window:
where x is a number 0 - 4. No restart of X is necessary. Try with different values and see if there is any improvement. |
|
asdf
join:2002-09-07
| said by benyto  :Try playing with the InitialPixmapPlacement setting available with the nvidia-settings command to see if it makes any difference in the performance. From a terminal window: where x is a number 0 - 4. No restart of X is necessary. Try with different values and see if there is any improvement. Thanks, I just tried what you suggested for values between 0 and 4.. unfortunately it doesn't seem to improve anything. I'm rather confused -- I figure an NVidia Quadro is a pretty powerful card. My smaller D420 laptop, with integrated intel graphics, handles it much better than this bigger laptop.
Is there some de-facto standard for measuring graphics performance? Maybe that would help debug what's wrong here. I suppose maybe the number that glxgears reports, but I have no benchmark to compare it against, nor do I really trust those numbers as any indication of graphics performance.. |
|
benyto
Premium
join:2000-07-09
Chico, CA
| Your issues are with 2D performance. glxgears is a 3D application. You may want to look at gtkperf for benchmarking 2D. Although that is only likely to tell you what you already know: 2D rendering is slow.
What version of the nVidia driver are you using? |
|
asdf
join:2002-09-07
2 edits | Epyon9283: thanks, I'll have a look at that. How is the 3d performance with those drivers? I just looked at their page, and they make no mention of supporting nVidia Quadro cards, though... I'll poke around a bit.
benyto: Thanks. I'm using the latest version of the nVidia driver, which is 185.18.14 (for x86_64). My old desktop, with its GeForce 6600, never showed any such problems (though to be fair, it's a desktop video card, of course). |
|
