OpenGL 2.0

[MichaelS-R]

I have recently installed an application requiring OpenGL 2.0. I think that my current version is a bit behind that:

glxinfo | grep OpenGL\ version\ string
OpenGL version string: 1.4 (1.5 Mesa 6.5.2)

I am running an nVidia NV43 (GeForce 6600) graphics card.
Where do I go from here?
Thanks,
Michael

[Hlingler]

You're using the built-in open-source video drivers. Install nvidia driver RPMs from either Livna or FreshRPMs - they are OpenGL v.2.x+

[Vince@presario Wed Mar 19 14:41:21 ~]$ glxinfo | grep OpenGL\ version\ string
OpenGL version string: 2.1.2 NVIDIA 169.12
[Vince@presario Wed Mar 19 14:41:24 ~]$

That's for an nvidia GeForce 6150LE. See: http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=99285 and follow links for tutorial.

V

[MichaelS-R]

Thanks - a bit of digging to do to make sure I don't make a mistake! Will let you know how it goes.

[Hlingler]

OK - keep in mind also that with the built-in open-source Mesa drivers, you get no direct (aka "hardware-accelerated") rendering, so stuff like most graphics-intensive games will be horribly slow.

[Vince@presario Wed Mar 19 15:30:23 ~]$ glxinfo|grep render
direct rendering: Yes
OpenGL renderer string: GeForce 6150 LE/PCI/SSE2/3DNOW!
    GL_NVX_conditional_render, GL_SGIS_generate_mipmap, GL_SGIS_texture_lod,
[Vince@presario Wed Mar 19 15:30:31 ~]$

V

[MichaelS-R]

So, by changing things should speed up?

I did wonder - this machine is no slouch but I have always been disappointed by the more intensive graphics stuff.

Thanks, Michael

[Hlingler]

Originally Posted by MichaelS-R

So, by changing things should speed up?

I did wonder - this machine is no slouch but I have always been disappointed by the more intensive graphics stuff.

Thanks, Michael

You should notice a marked increase in performance between the built-in 2D open-source "Mesa" video driver and the proprietary nvidia 3D hardware-accelerated driver. In addition, the 3d driver will take some stress off of the CPU during graphics rendering.

To test this yourself, run that command (as any user): glxinfo|grep render; you will see: "Direct rendering: No". The following command is NOT a benchmark, but will give you an idea of how your machine performs (as any user): glxgears. You'll see a gearbox appear in a pop-up window, and the FPS (frames-per-second) recorded in 5-second chunks in the terminal. Don't hide/cover or minimize the gearbox. Simply close the gearbox window to exit the test. Here's a sample:

[Vince@presario Thu Mar 20 09:12:48 ~]$ glxgears
6123 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1224.520 FPS
6648 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1329.568 FPS
6784 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1356.667 FPS
6446 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1289.140 FPS
6274 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1254.787 FPS
XIO:  fatal IO error 104 (Connection reset by peer) on X server ":0.0"
      after 39 requests (38 known processed) with 0 events remaining.
[Vince@presario Thu Mar 20 09:13:23 ~]$

I would think your card should be at least as good, probably much better than mine. I'll bet it isn't, until you get the right driver. It will be interesting to compare glxgears FPS before and after....

V

EDIT: BTW, you are indeed wise to wait until you can afford the time to play, because getting the driver set up correctly can be a real PITA....

[MichaelS-R]

You have a point, current output is:

$ glxgears
4718 frames in 5.0 seconds = 941.737 FPS
4680 frames in 5.0 seconds = 932.035 FPS
4680 frames in 5.0 seconds = 929.945 FPS
4560 frames in 5.0 seconds = 903.751 FPS
4800 frames in 5.0 seconds = 951.545 FPS
4680 frames in 5.0 seconds = 928.092 FPS
4680 frames in 5.0 seconds = 932.412 FPS
5160 frames in 5.1 seconds = 1021.586 FPS

I've got some critical work to do on this machine and cannot risk not having it working, I'll give the change a try over the weekend if I have time.
Thanks again,
Michael