Difference between revisions of "Talk:ATI"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(EXA and Adobe Flash performance: new section)
Line 8: Line 8:
 
If you are sure hwd -x is the best way to do this, then you should change the wiki to recommend this option.
 
If you are sure hwd -x is the best way to do this, then you should change the wiki to recommend this option.
 
I am not sure, since I'm new with linux and so forth.
 
I am not sure, since I'm new with linux and so forth.
 +
 +
== EXA and Adobe Flash performance ==
 +
 +
I noticed that enabling
 +
<pre>Option "AccelMethod" "EXA"</pre>
 +
as mentioned under "Performance tuning" lead to significantly worse Flash performance. This was using extra/flashplugin 10.0.22.87-1, aur/firefox-beta 3.5rc2-1 and extra/xf86-video-ati 6.12.2-2. My card (ATI Radeon 9550) uses the RV350 chipset, hence it is a bit dated. 
 +
 +
If this isn't just a local phenomena, perhaps it should be mentioned?

Revision as of 17:24, 25 June 2009

Configuration instructions 2008/07

Kudos to PCMan for adding detailed instructions on proper xorg.conf troubleshooting, but I'm wondering how necessary it is. If users run hwd -x to generate their configs (instead of Xorg -configure) all of the necessary items are added to xorg.conf automatically, making the bulk of the new information unnecessary.

Is there a reason we don't instruct users to run hwd to generate the xorg.conf files?

--Thayer @ 2008/07/02

If you are sure hwd -x is the best way to do this, then you should change the wiki to recommend this option. I am not sure, since I'm new with linux and so forth.

EXA and Adobe Flash performance

I noticed that enabling

Option "AccelMethod" "EXA"

as mentioned under "Performance tuning" lead to significantly worse Flash performance. This was using extra/flashplugin 10.0.22.87-1, aur/firefox-beta 3.5rc2-1 and extra/xf86-video-ati 6.12.2-2. My card (ATI Radeon 9550) uses the RV350 chipset, hence it is a bit dated.

If this isn't just a local phenomena, perhaps it should be mentioned?