Uhm, I probably didn't make this completely clear:
_Both_ copies of quake are running on the ALPHA, running the same
executable on the same CPU. They both have to calculate every single
pixel on the ALPHA.
_One_ copy (the one I referred to as "local") copies each frame into
the X buffer, presumably via shared memory. X is taking about 5%
CPU load for this. The other copy (the "remote" one) instead is
sending the whole frame through two NE2000 cards to the Pentiums
Bow, with both copies doing the same calculations, and the remote copy
having to fight with the ethernet bottleneck, I would expect the
local copy to run faster than the remote one. The opposite is the
case, the remote copy is 2.5 times faster (16fps vs 6fps).
-- To unsubscribe: send e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org with 'unsubscribe' as the subject. Do not send it to email@example.com
Copyright © 1995-1997 Red Hat Software. Legal notices