graphics acceleration

Walter Horsten walter.horsten at
Mon Nov 4 01:49:31 PST 2002

On Monday 04 November 2002 10:14, you wrote:
> Dagmar d'Surreal wrote:
> > On Sun, 2002-11-03 at 15:36, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > >   I think the resolution can change the benchmark considerably.  Try
> > >
> > > making glxgears full screen or very small.  My screen is 1600x1200
> > > and the default gives me 2400 FPS.  I can reduce the window and get
> > > over 6000 FPS or make it full screen and get 184 FPS.  Note that the
> > >
> > > eye/brain can't see more than about 24-30 FPS.
> >
> > ...and to stomp on the egos of gamers who think they can tell the
> > difference between 60fps and 130fps, monitor refresh rates being 60,
> > 70, 72, and/or 75Hz most of the time make for a much more brutal
> > upper-limit to the utility of ludicrously high frame-rates.  ;)
> Although in the gamers favor (I'm not one, but I know a few), the idea
> is to make sure the *minimum* fps stays around the 30+fps mark - it's
> all very well to get 1000+fps on a picture of rotating gears, but an
> entirely different thing with a complex environment and lots of textured
> objects.

> Simon.

When OpenGL double buffers a screen it has to wait until the vertical retrace 
of your screen occurs (because this is the only time when nothing is drawn to 
the screen and the buffer can be changed without flicker), so the actual 
framerate you get can indeed only be as high as your framerate (to get your 
monitors non standard modelines: search for read-edid on freshmeat or 
calculate yourself). However it is usefull to be able to draw a scene more 
than the refresh rate (without swapping the buffer) to acheive special 
effects like motion blur, bump mapping and environment mapping.



Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-support' in the subject header of the message

More information about the blfs-support mailing list