Difference between revisions of "Talk:Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 900"

From ThinkWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
What is the openGL performance like on this card? Could I play UT2004 and run the OpenGL screensaver hacks at a reasonable speed. In comparison To say a Radeon 9000/9200 card?
 
What is the openGL performance like on this card? Could I play UT2004 and run the OpenGL screensaver hacks at a reasonable speed. In comparison To say a Radeon 9000/9200 card?
 +
 +
It was a pain to get it working under xorg, and once it was running, acceleration required it to be set to 16bit, at 1024x768x16 (a X41) the default glxgears shows ~1300fps, external monitor did not get acceleration (~600fps). And the ogl rendering seams to be buggy with missing textures here and there.  I don't know how this translates to UT2004 performance , but you can probably run some opengl screensavers with no problem.
 +
Hopefully xorg 6.9 and 7.0 will provide proper support. --[[User:Meta|Meta]] 23:01, 29 Nov 2005 (CET)

Revision as of 23:01, 29 November 2005

What is the openGL performance like on this card? Could I play UT2004 and run the OpenGL screensaver hacks at a reasonable speed. In comparison To say a Radeon 9000/9200 card?

It was a pain to get it working under xorg, and once it was running, acceleration required it to be set to 16bit, at 1024x768x16 (a X41) the default glxgears shows ~1300fps, external monitor did not get acceleration (~600fps). And the ogl rendering seams to be buggy with missing textures here and there. I don't know how this translates to UT2004 performance , but you can probably run some opengl screensavers with no problem. Hopefully xorg 6.9 and 7.0 will provide proper support. --Meta 23:01, 29 Nov 2005 (CET)