[Chimera-users] ATI catalyst 5.7 drivers with R9600SE video card crash winxp when creating surfaces (or running surface benchmark) in chimera-1.2143

[sabuj pattanayek]

Hi,

No rush, but thanks for checking.

Also I have another question regarding the benchmark scores in linux vs 
WinXP on the same machine.

The surface benchmark under WinXP seems to be almost twice as high as 
that in linux, but everything else is higher in linux:

Chimera-1.2154, Linux-2.6.12.5, ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 (128MB), 
fglrx-8.16.20 drivers, ECS G736 laptop, 1G RAM, P4 3.2GHz

Surface rendering
  size      rate
    32      249.0
    64       76.5
   128       20.0
   179       10.3
   250        5.3
   214        7.2
   196        8.6
   187        9.4
   183        9.9
   181       10.1
   182       10.0
Surface rendering benchmark: 181
Mesh rendering
  size      rate
    32      249.5
    64       74.1
   128       19.7
   179       10.2
   250        5.3
   214        7.2
   196        8.5
   187        9.4
   183        9.8
   181       10.0
   182        9.9
Mesh rendering benchmark: 181
Contouring
  size      rate
    32      371.8
    64       70.4
   128       13.4
   179        6.4
   153        9.1
   140       11.6
   146       10.1
   149        9.6
   147        9.9
Contouring benchmark: 146
Solid rendering
  size      rate
    32       76.7
    64       38.2
   128       19.2
   179       13.9
   250        9.8
   214       11.5
   232       10.6
   241       10.1
   245       10.0
   243       10.1
   244       10.0
Solid rendering benchmark: 244
Recoloring
  size      rate
    32      145.6
    64       43.9
   128        8.1
    96       17.2
   112       11.6
   120        9.7
   116       10.6
   118       10.1
   119        9.9
Recoloring benchmark: 118
Benchmark scores
surface 181  mesh 181  contour 146  solid 244  recolor 118

Chimera-1.2143, WinXP SP1, ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 (128MB), driver 
6.14.10.6436, ECS G736 laptop, 1G RAM, P4 3.2GHz

Surface rendering
  size      rate
    32      256.0
    64      130.0
   128       27.5
   179       39.0
   250       29.8
   350       26.5
   489        1.6
   419        1.3
   384        1.7
   367        1.9
   358        1.9
   354        2.0
   352        1.8
   351        2.0
Surface rendering benchmark: 350
Mesh rendering
  size      rate
    32      135.0
    64       49.0
   128       15.0
   179        7.4
   153        9.1
   140       11.6
   146       11.6
   149       11.3
   151        9.9
   150       11.0
Mesh rendering benchmark: 150
Contouring
  size      rate
    32      169.0
    64       35.0
   128        6.7
    96       15.8
   112        9.0
   104       12.0
   108       11.3
   110       13.0
   111        8.0
Contouring benchmark: 110
Solid rendering
  size      rate
    32       59.7
    64       55.1
   128       14.5
   179       32.0
   250        7.5
   214        8.6
   196       29.3
   205       30.5
   209        8.7
   207       29.6
   208       30.0
Solid rendering benchmark: 208
Recoloring
  size      rate
    32       75.0
    64       14.8
   128        1.7
    96        4.7
    80        5.7
    72        9.0
    68       11.6
    70       11.6
    71        9.7
Recoloring benchmark: 70
Benchmark scores
surface 350  mesh 150  contour 110  solid 208  recolor 70

If you add up the scores you get for linux = 870 and for WinXP = 888. 
The difference I notice in the surface benchmark is that under linux 
after a surface size of 250 is rendered it renders a size of 214, 
whereas in WinXP it attempts a higher size of 350. How does it decide to 
attempt a higher or lower size? Is this a bug or some sort of malloc 
error in linux? It seems to me that if the linux surface score is >= the 
WinXP score, the overall score under linux would be much greater.

Thanks for your help,
Sabuj Pattanayek

Thomas Goddard wrote:
> Hi Sabuj,
> 
>   We use Chimera with an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro on Win XP.  I'm not sure
> we have tried Chimera version 1.2143 (the machine is down now) -- could
> be 1.2129 was the last version we tried on that machine.  Also the drivers
> on that machine are probably a year old.  If you are interested I can get
> more definitive information about that machine when we get it running again.
> 
>      Tom