64bit or 32bit for my laptop

[Sharpe, Sam J]

Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 22:40 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:45:26 +0800
> > Meng Qiu wrote:
> >
> >> The "gears" for my GeForce4 MX440 on F10 is about 1700 FPS.
> >> But the number for my HD1950pro on F11(pre) is never up to 100 FPS!
> > 7074 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1414.687 FPS
> > 7103 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1420.448 FPS
> > 7102 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1420.320 FPS
> > 7112 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1422.319 FPS
> >
> > That's on Fedora 10 with an ATI X1550 card and the video driver 
> that's included
> > with Fedora 10.  (Not the proprietary driver.)
>
> For comparison:
>
> 6799 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1359.743 FPS
> 6961 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1392.055 FPS
> 7015 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1402.842 FPS
> 6660 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1331.944 FPS
> 7034 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1406.609 FPS
> 6960 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1391.793 FPS
>
> That's on an Intel mobo with a 2GHz Core 2 Duo and 4GB of RAM, using the
> *onboard* 82Q963/Q965 graphics chip. So either glxgears isn't a very
> representative benchmark, or installing one of these graphics cards is a
> waste of time. I'm not sure which.
Or it's badly setup, because my low-end NVidia Cards beat that easily. 
(I have a pair of Quadro NVS 290 PCIe 64MB - admittedly using genuine 
NVidia drivers)

[sam at sam ~]$ glxgears
9648 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1929.527 FPS
9566 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1913.107 FPS
9679 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1935.721 FPS
9621 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1924.059 FPS

FWIW, I see a definite difference between the card running 2 x 1280x1024 
monitors vs. the card running 1920x1200 + 1280x1024 - the latter 
consistently scores in the 1700-1800s, the former (above) scores in the 
1900s. Each card is running NVidia's TwinView, but I don't have Xinerama 
running to bind the  two sets of screens together.

(note to others - don't try running Compiz on this setup, it really 
really can't handle a 5760 x 1200 array of pixels yet)

--
Sam