UT2004 benchmarks:

$ cat /opt/ut2004-demo/Benchmark/benchmark.sh 
#!/bin/sh
ut2004-demo dm-rankin?spectatoronly=1?numbots=12?quickstart=1?attractcam=1 -benchmark -seconds=77 -ini=default.ini -exec=/opt/ut2004-demo/Benchmark/Stuff/botmatchexec.txt

Here are results over the last year and 9 months or so:

2.736331 / 14.235601 / inf fps -- Score = 13.679287        rand[276381637]
5.503653 / 11.982956 / 34.976410 fps -- Score = 11.987910        rand[1886997259]
5.563165 / 12.212557 / 45.396217 fps -- Score = 12.217196        rand[1886997259]
5.556774 / 12.213729 / 46.879482 fps -- Score = 12.218822        rand[1886997259]
3.780525 / 204.517151 / inf fps -- Score = 61.584534        rand[1605499383]
5.914872 / 13.538128 / 115.044312 fps -- Score = 13.543859        rand[1886997259]
5.240792 / 28.211584 / inf fps -- Score = 26.802221        rand[1357638259]
5.196166 / 22.054844 / 60.286556 fps -- Score = 22.120491        rand[1886997259]
7.092757 / 25.348576 / 76.011848 fps -- Score = 25.362152        rand[1886997259]
5.720313 / 21.504700 / 61.338535 fps -- Score = 21.514923        rand[1886997259]
9.163403 / 24.096804 / 88.282417 fps -- Score = 24.170898        rand[1886997259]
4.439383 / 24.573044 / 76.100990 fps -- Score = 24.603319        rand[1886997259]
5.927572 / 27.762682 / 130.561325 fps -- Score = 27.756296        rand[1886997259]
4.238309 / 27.693068 / 95.542274 fps -- Score = 27.792650        rand[1886997259]
8.512435 / 28.529356 / 69.447021 fps -- Score = 28.553085        rand[1886997259]
4.627872 / 30.571907 / 110.623741 fps -- Score = 30.584023        rand[1886997259]
9.365571 / 21.006798 / 141.206314 fps -- Score = 21.015017        rand[1886997259]
6.343858 / 22.841759 / 79.750206 fps -- Score = 22.853823        rand[1886997259]
6.288816 / 22.901237 / 79.940460 fps -- Score = 22.911160        rand[1886997259]
6.933957 / 26.870264 / 115.506584 fps -- Score = 26.882593        rand[1886997259]
4.404226 / 26.891077 / 113.770134 fps -- Score = 26.900879        rand[1886997259]
7.666574 / 27.085035 / 90.499039 fps -- Score = 27.101841        rand[1886997259]
4.793906 / 27.111494 / 113.976692 fps -- Score = 27.120817        rand[1886997259]
5.426033 / 26.120008 / 110.599205 fps -- Score = 26.131107        rand[1886997259]
6.902118 / 25.060440 / 108.251572 fps -- Score = 25.068457        rand[1886997259]
8.680158 / 25.102127 / 113.842644 fps -- Score = 25.109219        rand[1886997259]

It goes up and down, but considering how old this game (and that it performs much better on windows) is somewhat sad, but not surprising.

That last instance was run several minutes ago:

$ cat Results/avgfps-2009-09-30-22-46-48.log UT2004 Build UT2004_Build_[2004-09-21_19.13]
x86-64 Linux
 Unknown processor @ 2394 MHz
Mesa DRI Intel(R) 965GM GEM 20090712 2009Q2 RC3 

dm-rankin?spectatoronly=1?numbots=12?quickstart=1?attractcam=1 -benchmark -seconds=77 -exitafterdemo -exec=/opt/ut2004-demo/Benchmark/Stuff/botmatchexec.txt

8.680158 / 25.102127 / 113.842644 fps         rand[1886997259]
Score = 25.109219

I think people were getting some 40 FPS in windows....

Related to the previous post:

bryan@baal:~$ glxgears 
Running synchronized to the vertical refresh.  The framerate should be
approximately 1/195213 the monitor refresh rate.
15438 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3087.536 FPS
15345 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3068.929 FPS
15339 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3067.797 FPS
XIO:  fatal IO error 11 (Resource temporarily unavailable) on X server ":0.0"
      after 50 requests (49 known processed) with 0 events remaining.
bryan@baal:~$ lspci | grep ATI
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV730 PRO [Radeon HD 4650]
01:00.1 Audio device: ATI Technologies Inc R700 Audio Device [Radeon HD 4000 Series]

The Radeon plays Half-Life Episode 2 with low/medium detail at playable framerates (through WINE). But even this is a slow card compared to the higher end cards (and especially Nvidia cards in Linux).

Oh, and with the VIA Nano I can get ~230 fps for glxgears in Ubuntu Karmic Alpha 6.

W00t!

Yeah, somehow I'm not surprised "VIA Chrome9 HC3 Integrated Graphics" aren't very good. As a comparison my crappy G965 (X3100) Thinkpad gets around ~1000 to ~1100 depending on what crazy crap they changed (or when it completely breaks and drops to 100).

I've been told glxgears is a bad benchmark, but it is a good ballpark (because it does seem to relate with general card performance pretty well when fancy things like shaders/glsl stuff isn't involved. Kind of a raw power benchmark.

After all, all glxgears does is render 3 gears made of solid color polygons via display lists. So that is the performance you are benchmarking (not cooler VBO's .... or other cool things like "textures" - you may have heard of them).

I wonder if there is any KMS stuff in the pipe for the Chrome9? Or if it's even worth while...

I finally got my stupid VIA Nano (U2300) working, it was as simple as this:

idle=poll
(added to kernel boot param - apparently idle=halt should also work).

With this both Fedora 11, and Ubuntu 9.10 Alpha 6 work. And fedora boots up quicker :)

The idle parameter has a number of values it can take, and they appear to boot the box in different fashions (halt is "cooler", or so I read on a forum - the kernel docs make it look like the mid-range C-states are not used, which is rather bizarre - a sort of all or nothing approach to CPU power management?).

From /usr/src/linux/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt (this includes X86_64 as well):

  idle=   [X86]
      Format: idle=poll, idle=mwait, idle=halt, idle=nomwait
      Poll forces a polling idle loop that can slightly
      improve the performance of waking up a idle CPU, but
      will use a lot of power and make the system run hot.
      Not recommended.
      idle=mwait: On systems which support MONITOR/MWAIT but
      the kernel chose to not use it because it doesn't save
      as much power as a normal idle loop, use the
      MONITOR/MWAIT idle loop anyways. Performance should be
      the same as idle=poll.
      idle=halt: Halt is forced to be used for CPU idle.
      In such case C2/C3 won't be used again.
      idle=nomwait: Disable mwait for CPU C-states

Needless to say, I'll stay with idle=poll. Apparently this is need for all Linux kernels 2.6.24 and above.

Board found here (and elsewhere, probably):

http://www.logicsupply.com/products/nf76_n1gl_lf