|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | I [[User:Nomeata|Nomeata]] suggest
| + | ''(for discussoin of formatting, see history -- [[User:Nomeata|Nomeata]])'' |
| | | | |
| − | *Thinkpad Model (i.e. Thinkpad T40)
| + | Shoudn't the kernel be after the driver, since I'd rather compare different kernels and same driver than different driver and same kernel? --[[User:Nomeata|Nomeata]] 13:25, 29 Sep 2004 (CEST) |
| − | **test application (i.e. glxgears / 3Dmark2000 / ... )
| |
| − | ***Driver (i.e. fglrx / xfree / xorg / ibm / dna / omega / ... )
| |
| − | | |
| − | Since you most likely want to compare results of same hardware and benchmark than yours.
| |
| − | | |
| − | --[[User:Nomeata|Nomeata]]
| |
| − | ----
| |
| − | I think so, too. Obviously the goal of fps comparison is to find out the best configuration for a specific model.
| |
| − | | |
| − | --[[User:Akw|akw]] 00:22, 25 Sep 2004 (CEST)
| |
| − | ----
| |
| − | | |
| − | done it
| |
| − | --[[User:Nomeata|Nomeata]] 00:31, 25 Sep 2004 (CEST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ----
| |
| − | I had it like this in the beginning. | |
| − | | |
| − | But i thought about splitting it into single pages and then this order would mean a lot of single pages. So i turned it around, because:
| |
| − | | |
| − | Testapplication -> Driver ---link---> TestAppDriverPage -> ThinkpadModel is a hirarchy with a low number of single pages (All models for one TestApp-Driver-combination on one page).
| |
| − | | |
| − | But you are right, it makes more sense from the comparison point of view to put the drivers in the end.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Shell we split into separate pages anyway? And if so, on the Model level or on the testapp level?
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[User:Wyrfel|Wyrfel]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ----
| |
| − | Not before it is not too full
| |
| − | | |
| − | Or just use a tabluar format, sorted this way, for example:
| |
| − | | |
| − | {| border="1"
| |
| − | |+ Benchmark results
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | ! Model !! Benchmark !! Driver !! fps !! User and Notes
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | T41p [[2373-GHG]] || fgl_glxgears || radeon || 259fps || [[User:Nomeata|Nomeata]] ''vesa framebuffer active, therefore no mtrr for radeon''
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | T41p [[2373-GHG]] || glxgears || radeon || 1209fps || [[User:Nomeata|Nomeata]] ''vesa framebuffer active, therefore no mtrr for radeon''
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − | | |
| − | --[[User:Nomeata|Nomeata]] 00:44, 25 Sep 2004 (CEST)
| |
| − | ----
| |
| − | | |
| − | I prefer the tabular way, it makes a lot of sense here.
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[User:Wyrfel|Wyrfel]] 00:55, 25 Sep 2004 (CEST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ----
| |
| − | Done
| |
| − | | |
| − | --[[User:Nomeata|Nomeata]] 00:57, 25 Sep 2004 (CEST)
| |
| − | ----
| |
| − | Maybe it would be also interesting which version of X and fglrx was running while benchmarking. I noticed some discussion about the new fglrx ver. 12 being somewhat slower than older versions and so on.
| |
| − | | |
| − | --[[User:Akw|akw]] 01:10, 25 Sep 2004 (CEST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ----
| |
| − | Sure, but then we need a way to shorten the notes. For example, Just put "''no mtrr''" in there and explain it below the table
| |
| − | --[[User:Nomeata|Nomeata]] 01:19, 25 Sep 2004 (CEST) | |
| − | ----
| |
| − | Good idea!
| |
| − | | |
| − | --[[User:Akw|akw]] 01:27, 25 Sep 2004 (CEST)
| |
| − | ----
| |
| − | Done it. It wraps the lines here, but that's ok
| |
| − | | |
| − | --[[User:Nomeata|Nomeata]] 01:49, 25 Sep 2004 (CEST)
| |
