VectorLinux
September 16, 2014, 01:12:49 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Visit our home page for VL info. To search the old message board go to http://vectorlinux.com/forum1. The first VL forum is temporarily offline until we can find a host for it. Thanks for your patience.
 
Now powered by KnowledgeDex.
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Please support VectorLinux!
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Nvidia GeForce2 MX64 and 5.9 - some weird results...  (Read 2691 times)
Old Lodge Skins
Member
*
Posts: 12


« on: January 04, 2008, 01:32:42 pm »

Hi all,

I was given today an Athlon 1.3GHz / 640MB machine, and since my main desktop is a PIII-850 / 256MB I thought I would replace it...
I also figured Vector would be perfect for that new machine, and since I've been testing the new 5.9 for a couple of weeks now on the PIII and really enjoy it (great work guys btw - as usual), I installed that one, and also installed the Nvidia proprietary driver that comes on Vector's intall CD. So far, all was fine. I didn't install anything else (I don't even have a network card in that machine yet anyway... So I can't install anything external at the moment).

But I get two weird things:

1. On the card itself there is a sticky saying it's a WinFast GeForce2 MX64. I searched and it is supposed to have 64MB of memory as the name says... But the Nvidia configuration utility says it's a GeForce MX 100/200 with 32MB??? Do you have any idea of what might be going on? Is that tool reliable?

2. I get some very low performance with GlxGears (350 FPS). Even the TNT2 32MB that is in my PIII does a lot better when the legacy Nvidia driver is enabled (around 1300 FPS). Do you have any idea of what I may have done wrong? I simply followed the instructions during installation, even disabled the "composite" extension in xorg.conf just in case... I have no idea where it may come from.

Thanks in advance.

Seb.

PS: I can't paste any configuration file sample here since I have no network yet on that computer, but I should be able to get a network card tomorrow, so hopefully I should be able to paste anything you may ask for within 24 hours.
Logged
kidd
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 682


« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2008, 01:40:58 pm »

You can try reinstalling last drivers from nvidia site.

I did so with my ati X550 and it increased its performance... Maybe it helps....
Logged

Old Lodge Skins
Member
*
Posts: 12


« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2008, 01:46:25 pm »

Yes, maybe... I'll try that once I have a network card in that machine.

Seb.
Logged
uelsk8s
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 2504



« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2008, 02:30:02 pm »

there are 3 nvidia driver versions that come with 5.9
start the computer in CLI, login as root and run vxconf when it asks what driver you want to use choose expert and then try the different drivers to see if 1 works better for you.
Logged
Old Lodge Skins
Member
*
Posts: 12


« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2008, 02:47:23 pm »

Hi,

the one installed by default was 96.43.01. It works but has the issues I was talking about.
The 71.86.01 makes KDM crash (I have the same weird behavior on my PIII but didn't take care of it yet). If I start in text mode, login and then issue a "startx", it works but with the same performance issues.
The 100.14.23 won't work on my card (it says it is supported by the 96.xx series).

Seb.
Logged
Old Lodge Skins
Member
*
Posts: 12


« Reply #5 on: January 05, 2008, 05:31:06 am »

Hi all,

I've re-installed the system on the definitive hard drive (the other one was just an old 6GB I use for testing purposes)... And still have the same problem.
I'll paste here my Xorg.conf file just in case you may find something I didn't see, and in the meantime, I'll try to download the driver directly from nvidia.com.

Seb.

Code:
Section "ServerLayout"
Identifier     "X.org Configured"
Screen      0  "Screen0" 0 0
InputDevice    "Mouse0" "CorePointer"
InputDevice    "Keyboard0" "CoreKeyboard"
EndSection

Section "Files"
RgbPath      "/usr/share/X11/rgb"
ModulePath   "/usr/lib/xorg/modules"
FontPath     "/usr/share/fonts/TTF"
FontPath     "/usr/share/fonts/OTF"
FontPath     "/usr/share/fonts/Type1"
FontPath     "/usr/share/fonts/misc"
FontPath     "/usr/share/fonts/75dpi/:unscaled"
EndSection

Section "Module"
Load  "glx"
Load  "extmod"
Load  "xtrap"
Load  "record"
Load  "GLcore"
Load  "dbe"
#Load  "dri"
Load  "freetype"
Load  "type1"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
Identifier  "Keyboard0"
Driver      "kbd"
Option  "XkbLayout"  "fr"    ## KEYBOARD_MAP!
Option  "XkbModel"  "pc105"    ## KEYBOARD_MODEL!
Option  "Xkbvariant"  "nodeadkeys"    ## KEYBOARD_VARIANT!
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
Identifier  "Mouse0"
Driver      "mouse"
Option     "Protocol" "auto"
Option     "Device" "/dev/input/mice"
Option     "ZAxisMapping" "4 5"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
 DisplaySize 336 269 # 96 DPI @ 1280x1024 (non 4:3 aspect)
  Option "UseEdidFreqs" "1"
#DisplaySize   340   270 # mm
Identifier   "Monitor0"
VendorName   "AOC"
ModelName    "LM720/LM720A"
### Comment all HorizSync and VertRefresh values to use DDC:
HorizSync    30.0 - 83.0
VertRefresh  55.0 - 75.0
Option     "DPMS"
EndSection

Section "Device"
Option "UseEdidDpi" "false"
Option "DPI" "96 x 96"
Option "AddARGBGLXVisuals" "True"
Option "RenderAccel" "true"
Option "AllowGLXWithComposite" "true"
### Available Driver options are:-
### Values: <i>: integer, <f>: float, <bool>: "True"/"False",
### <string>: "String", <freq>: "<f> Hz/kHz/MHz"
### [arg]: arg optional
#Option     "SWcursor"            # [<bool>]
#Option     "HWcursor"            # [<bool>]
#Option     "NoAccel"            # [<bool>]
#Option     "ShadowFB"            # [<bool>]
#Option     "UseFBDev"            # [<bool>]
#Option     "Rotate"              # [<str>]
#Option     "VideoKey"            # <i>
#Option     "FlatPanel"          # [<bool>]
#Option     "FPDither"            # [<bool>]
#Option     "CrtcNumber"          # <i>
#Option     "FPScale"            # [<bool>]
#Option     "FPTweak"            # <i>
#Option     "DualHead"            # [<bool>]
Identifier  "Card0"
Driver      "nvidia"
VendorName  "nVidia Corporation"
BoardName   "NV11DDR [GeForce2 MX200]"
BusID       "PCI:1:0:0"
EndSection

Section "Screen"
Identifier "Screen0"
Device     "Card0"
Monitor    "Monitor0"
DefaultDepth 24
SubSection "Display"
Viewport   0 0
Depth     1
Modes "1280x1024" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Viewport   0 0
Depth     4
Modes "1280x1024" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Viewport   0 0
Depth     8
Modes "1280x1024" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Viewport   0 0
Depth     15
Modes "1280x1024" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Viewport   0 0
Depth     16
Modes "1280x1024" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Viewport   0 0
Depth     24
Modes "1280x1024" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
EndSubSection
EndSection

Section "Extensions"
#Option "Composite" "on"
EndSection
Logged
Old Lodge Skins
Member
*
Posts: 12


« Reply #6 on: January 05, 2008, 05:56:33 am »

Result: the driver I downloaded (same version as the one that comes with VL) crashes, the X serve won't start...
I've put the other one back, still get low performance...
I find weird the the Nvidia tool says it's a GeForce2 MX 200 / 32 MB while it's an MX64 / 64MB... Isn't there a way to force the driver to consider it's an MX64?

Seb.
Logged
Old Lodge Skins
Member
*
Posts: 12


« Reply #7 on: January 05, 2008, 10:01:10 am »

I've read somewhere that Glxgears isn't a reliable benchmark tool, so I've decided to install something quite common that a lot of other people have surely played: Unreal Tournament 2004 demo.
I couldn't reach the console to make it show the FPS but according to what I've seen I'd say it seems to run around 20 - 22 FPS. Nearly playble, just a little bit slow... Most options were set to "normal" except the world detail that I set to "low" and the resolution is 1024x768.
Do you think this is normal performance with this configuration: AMD Athlon 1.3GHz, 640MB RAM, GeForce2 MX64?
The 3D acceleration is obviously working but I'm wordering if it isn't working on only half of the board's RAM - since it is reported to have 32MB... While it is supposed to have 64MB.

Thanks.

Seb.
Logged
uelsk8s
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 2504



« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2008, 10:28:57 am »

aside from suggesting you try older drivers. there are lots to try here: http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display_archive.html
you can also get help from the nvidia linux forum here: http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?s&forumid=14
I wish i could help further.
Uelsk8s
Logged
Old Lodge Skins
Member
*
Posts: 12


« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2008, 01:46:32 pm »

Thanks, but I had already looked at the nvidia forums Wink
I may try older versions of the driver though.

Finally it appears the problem is not as bad as I thought; After using nvclock to increase the GPU's frequency a little bit (since I've read it could go up to 200MHz) UT2004 runs a little bit better... And it seems that the values reported by GlxGears, which made me post my concerns in the first place, are not reliable.
But I still have doubts about that memory problem... I didn't buy that machine -  and that card - it was given to me. It comes from a company that recently changed their hardware. What makes me think it's a 64MB card is that there is a sticky on it that says it's a "WinFast GeForce2 MX64"... Is it possible that it would REALLY have 32MB?Huh I've checked and that card was sold with 64MB, no doubt... So how could it be reported as having 32MB (even Nvclock says so)?
Anyway, supposing there is actually 64MB then it's a driver-related problem and has nothing to do with Vector itself...

Thanks for your help guys.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2008, 01:49:31 pm by Old Lodge Skins » Logged
uelsk8s
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 2504



« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2008, 02:04:00 pm »

I think the MX64 relates to a 64-bit memory bus not 64mb ram
this ia an ad for a 32mb version oof the card http://store.memorylabs.net/wingefmxmx32.html
Logged
Old Lodge Skins
Member
*
Posts: 12


« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2008, 02:47:40 pm »

Yeah I just came to the same conclusion...
The first reports I saw said it was a 64MB and this was misleading.
It seems stable with both the GPU and the memory overclocked and I guess that's the best I can do. Case closed.
Thanks anyway.

Seb.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!