Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230

 

 

 

Very big difference in graphic performance

If none of the specific sub-forums seem right for your thread, ask here.
Message
Author
Texlee
Posts: 58
Joined: 2024-01-05 15:10
Has thanked: 4 times

Very big difference in graphic performance

#1 Post by Texlee »

Hello, how is it possible that super tux kart works much better in internal display that in external one?
In the internal monitor it works at 110 fps instead in the external at 60, almost twice as much.
The resolution is the same for each ones and the internal one even works at 144 Hz instead of 60 of the other one
I've an nvidia graphic card with nvidia driver installed.

Thanks

User avatar
bbbhltz
Posts: 168
Joined: 2024-01-10 14:53
Location: Normandy
XMMP/Jabber: bbbhltz@mailbox.org
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Re: Very big difference in graphic performance

#2 Post by bbbhltz »

Hi. Some computers have dual/hybrid graphics. Can you give us the outputs of one or both of these commands? (you might need to install the packages)

Code: Select all

lshw -C display
(you might be asked to run that one as root)

Code: Select all

inxi -G
bbbhltz
longtime desktop Linux user; eternal newbie

Texlee
Posts: 58
Joined: 2024-01-05 15:10
Has thanked: 4 times

Re: Very big difference in graphic performance

#3 Post by Texlee »

bbbhltz wrote: 2024-02-16 08:09

Code: Select all

lshw -C display

Code: Select all

*-display                 
       description: VGA compatible controller
       product: AD107M [GeForce RTX 4050 Max-Q / Mobile]
       vendor: NVIDIA Corporation
       physical id: 0
       bus info: pci@0000:01:00.0
       logical name: /dev/fb0
       version: a1
       width: 64 bits
       clock: 33MHz
       capabilities: pm msi pciexpress vga_controller bus_master cap_list rom fb
       configuration: depth=32 driver=nvidia latency=0 mode=1920x1080 visual=truecolor xres=1920 yres=1080
       resources: iomemory:600-5ff iomemory:620-61f irq:223 memory:5f000000-5fffffff memory:6000000000-61ffffffff memory:6200000000-6201ffffff ioport:4000(size=128) memory:60000000-6007ffff
  *-display
       description: VGA compatible controller
       product: Alder Lake-P Integrated Graphics Controller
       vendor: Intel Corporation
       physical id: 2
       bus info: pci@0000:00:02.0
       logical name: /dev/fb0
       version: 0c
       width: 64 bits
       clock: 33MHz
       capabilities: pciexpress msi pm vga_controller bus_master cap_list rom fb
       configuration: depth=32 driver=i915 latency=0 resolution=1920,1080
       resources: iomemory:620-61f iomemory:400-3ff irq:203 memory:622e000000-622effffff memory:4000000000-400fffffff ioport:5000(size=64) memory:c0000-dffff memory:4010000000-4016ffffff memory:4020000000-40ffffffff
bbbhltz wrote: 2024-02-16 08:09

Code: Select all

inxi -G

Code: Select all

Graphics:
  Device-1: Intel Alder Lake-P Integrated Graphics driver: i915 v: kernel
  Device-2: NVIDIA AD107M [GeForce RTX 4050 Max-Q / Mobile] driver: nvidia
    v: 525.147.05
  Device-3: Sonix USB2.0 HD UVC WebCam type: USB driver: uvcvideo
  Display: x11 server: X.Org v: 1.21.1.7 with: Xwayland v: 22.1.9 driver: X:
    loaded: modesetting,nvidia unloaded: fbdev,vesa dri: iris
    gpu: i915,nvidia,nvidia-nvswitch resolution: 1: 3840x2160~60Hz 2: N/A
  API: OpenGL v: 4.6 Mesa 22.3.6 renderer: Mesa Intel Graphics (ADL GT2)
Even if I set the resolution to fullHD for inxi it is always in 4k.
Vice versa for lshw the resolution is always in fullHD even if it is set to 4k.

User avatar
bbbhltz
Posts: 168
Joined: 2024-01-10 14:53
Location: Normandy
XMMP/Jabber: bbbhltz@mailbox.org
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Re: Very big difference in graphic performance

#4 Post by bbbhltz »

With your external monitor connected what does the command

Code: Select all

xrandr
return?

Are you mirroring your screen or running just external when you do this?
bbbhltz
longtime desktop Linux user; eternal newbie

User avatar
bbbhltz
Posts: 168
Joined: 2024-01-10 14:53
Location: Normandy
XMMP/Jabber: bbbhltz@mailbox.org
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Re: Very big difference in graphic performance

#5 Post by bbbhltz »

I don't know if this is a definitive source, but...
GeForce RTX 4050 Max-Q Specs wrote:This device has no display connectivity, as it is not designed to have monitors connected to it. Rather it is intended for use in laptop/notebooks and will use the output of the host mobile device.
bbbhltz
longtime desktop Linux user; eternal newbie

Borg
Posts: 33
Joined: 2024-02-16 22:49
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Very big difference in graphic performance

#6 Post by Borg »

Is the external display connected via USB 3.x?

Texlee
Posts: 58
Joined: 2024-01-05 15:10
Has thanked: 4 times

Re: Very big difference in graphic performance

#7 Post by Texlee »

bbbhltz wrote: 2024-02-16 09:58 With your external monitor connected what does the command

Code: Select all

xrandr
return?

Code: Select all

Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 3840 x 2160, maximum 16384 x 16384
eDP-1 connected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
   1920x1080    144.00 +  60.00 +  59.97    59.96    59.93  
   1680x1050     59.95    59.88  
   1400x1050     74.76    59.98  
   1600x900      59.99    59.94    59.95    59.82  
   1280x1024     85.02    75.02    60.02  
   1400x900      59.96    59.88  
   1280x960      85.00    60.00  
   1440x810      60.00    59.97  
   1368x768      59.88    59.85  
   1280x800      59.99    59.97    59.81    59.91  
   1152x864      75.00  
   1280x720      60.00    59.99    59.86    59.74  
   1024x768      85.00    75.05    60.04    85.00    75.03    70.07    60.00  
   1024x768i     86.96  
   960x720       85.00    75.00    60.00  
   928x696       75.00    60.05  
   896x672       75.05    60.01  
   1024x576      59.95    59.96    59.90    59.82  
   960x600       59.93    60.00  
   832x624       74.55  
   960x540       59.96    59.99    59.63    59.82  
   800x600       85.00    75.00    70.00    65.00    60.00    85.14    72.19    75.00    60.32    56.25  
   840x525       60.01    59.88  
   864x486       59.92    59.57  
   700x525       74.76    59.98  
   800x450       59.95    59.82  
   640x512       85.02    75.02    60.02  
   700x450       59.96    59.88  
   640x480       85.09    60.00    85.01    72.81    75.00    59.94  
   720x405       59.51    58.99  
   720x400       85.04  
   684x384       59.88    59.85  
   640x400       59.88    59.98    85.08  
   576x432       75.00  
   640x360       59.86    59.83    59.84    59.32  
   640x350       85.08  
   512x384       85.00    75.03    70.07    60.00  
   512x384i      87.06  
   512x288       60.00    59.92  
   416x312       74.66  
   480x270       59.63    59.82  
   400x300       85.27    72.19    75.12    60.32    56.34  
   432x243       59.92    59.57  
   320x240       85.18    72.81    75.00    60.05  
   360x202       59.51    59.13  
   360x200       85.04  
   320x200       85.27  
   320x180       59.84    59.32  
   320x175       85.27  
DP-1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
DP-2 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
DP-3 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
DP-4 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
DP-1-0 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
DP-1-1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
HDMI-1-0 connected primary 3840x2160+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 600mm x 340mm
   3840x2160     60.00*+  59.94    50.00    30.00    29.97    25.00    23.98  
   2560x1440     59.95  
   1920x1080     60.00    60.00    59.94    29.97    23.98  
   1600x900      60.00  
   1280x1024     60.02  
   1280x800      59.81  
   1280x720      60.00    59.94  
   1152x864      60.00  
   1024x768      60.00  
   800x600       60.32  
   720x480       59.94  
   640x480       59.94    59.93  
DP-1-2 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
  1280x1024 (0x57) 108.000MHz +HSync +VSync
        h: width  1280 start 1328 end 1440 total 1688 skew    0 clock  63.98KHz
        v: height 1024 start 1025 end 1028 total 1066           clock  60.02Hz
  1280x800 (0x62) 83.500MHz -HSync +VSync
        h: width  1280 start 1352 end 1480 total 1680 skew    0 clock  49.70KHz
        v: height  800 start  803 end  809 total  831           clock  59.81Hz
  1024x768 (0x6f) 65.000MHz -HSync -VSync
        h: width  1024 start 1048 end 1184 total 1344 skew    0 clock  48.36KHz
        v: height  768 start  771 end  777 total  806           clock  60.00Hz
  800x600 (0x8b) 40.000MHz +HSync +VSync
        h: width   800 start  840 end  968 total 1056 skew    0 clock  37.88KHz
        v: height  600 start  601 end  605 total  628           clock  60.32Hz
  640x480 (0x9f) 25.175MHz -HSync -VSync
        h: width   640 start  656 end  752 total  800 skew    0 clock  31.47KHz
        v: height  480 start  490 end  492 total  525           clock  59.94Hz
bbbhltz wrote: 2024-02-16 09:58 Are you mirroring your screen or running just external when you do this?
I use only the external monitor while the internal one is turned off

Texlee
Posts: 58
Joined: 2024-01-05 15:10
Has thanked: 4 times

Re: Very big difference in graphic performance

#8 Post by Texlee »

Borg wrote: 2024-02-17 04:23 Is the external display connected via USB 3.x?
No, via HDMI

User avatar
bbbhltz
Posts: 168
Joined: 2024-01-10 14:53
Location: Normandy
XMMP/Jabber: bbbhltz@mailbox.org
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Re: Very big difference in graphic performance

#9 Post by bbbhltz »

Texlee wrote: 2024-02-15 22:19 The resolution is the same for each ones and the internal one even works at 144 Hz instead of 60 of the other one
Your most recent post (link) says...

You external monitor is your primary running at 3840x2160 60.00Hz and your laptop screen is running at 1920x1080 144.00Hz.

While I am no expert, I think those are the maximum values you can get out of the hardware and connected devices/monitors. I think that the Nvidia card does not drive the HDMI out. Think is the operative word.

The FPS issue might be resolved by lowering the external monitor's resolution?
bbbhltz
longtime desktop Linux user; eternal newbie

Texlee
Posts: 58
Joined: 2024-01-05 15:10
Has thanked: 4 times

Re: Very big difference in graphic performance

#10 Post by Texlee »

bbbhltz wrote: 2024-02-19 10:04 I think that the Nvidia card does not drive the HDMI out. Think is the operative word.
Unfortunately the HDMI port is directly connected with Nvidia card only. I wish I could use the integrated and low energy graphic card, but it is impossibile.
bbbhltz wrote: 2024-02-19 10:04 The FPS issue might be resolved by lowering the external monitor's resolution?
I set the external monitor resolution in fullHD but the FPS are always 60. The FPS are blocked at 60 in the menu of the game too and also it is always 60 even if I set the graphic level to minimum. In addition I think that my hardware is able to obtain 110 FPS also in 4K with super tux kart.

Is it possible there is a kind of software block?
Last edited by Texlee on 2024-02-19 11:06, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bbbhltz
Posts: 168
Joined: 2024-01-10 14:53
Location: Normandy
XMMP/Jabber: bbbhltz@mailbox.org
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Re: Very big difference in graphic performance

#11 Post by bbbhltz »

Sorry @Texlee, don't know about software block.

The only other suggestions I have are to change the title of the first post of the thread and add more description, use the mailing list to ask for help, or the IRC room.
bbbhltz
longtime desktop Linux user; eternal newbie

mrmazda
Posts: 357
Joined: 2023-06-02 02:22
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: Very big difference in graphic performance

#12 Post by mrmazda »

Texlee wrote: 2024-02-16 09:39...
inxi -G
...
Even if I set the resolution to fullHD for inxi it is always in 4k.
Vice versa for lshw the resolution is always in fullHD even if it is set to 4k.
inxi -G provides only a subset of available inxi output useful for graphics troubleshooting purposes. Please copy and paste input/output from inxi -GSaz --vs to provide the extra details.

Texlee
Posts: 58
Joined: 2024-01-05 15:10
Has thanked: 4 times

Re: Very big difference in graphic performance

#13 Post by Texlee »

mrmazda wrote: 2024-02-19 16:13
Texlee wrote: 2024-02-16 09:39...
inxi -G
...
Even if I set the resolution to fullHD for inxi it is always in 4k.
Vice versa for lshw the resolution is always in fullHD even if it is set to 4k.
inxi -G provides only a subset of available inxi output useful for graphics troubleshooting purposes. Please copy and paste input/output from inxi -GSaz --vs to provide the extra details.

Code: Select all

nxi 3.3.26-00 (2023-03-28)
System:
  Kernel: 6.1.0-17-amd64 arch: x86_64 bits: 64 compiler: gcc v: 12.2.0
    parameters: BOOT_IMAGE=/boot/vmlinuz-6.1.0-17-amd64
    root=UUID= ro nvidia-drm.modeset=1
    quiet
  Console: pty pts/0 DM: GDM3 v: 43.0 Distro: Debian GNU/Linux 12 (bookworm)
Graphics:
  Device-1: Intel Alder Lake-P Integrated Graphics vendor: ASUSTeK
    driver: i915 v: kernel arch: Gen-12.2 process: Intel 10nm built: 2021-22+
    ports: active: none off: eDP-1 empty: DP-1, DP-2, DP-3, DP-4
     Device-2: NVIDIA AD107M [GeForce RTX 4050 Max-Q / Mobile] vendor: ASUSTeK
    driver: nvidia v: 525.147.05 non-free: 530.xx+
    status: current (as of 2023-03) arch: Lovelace code: AD1xx
    process: TSMC n4 (5nm) built: 2022-23+ ports: active: none off: HDMI-A-1
    empty: DP-5,eDP-2 
  Display: server: X.org v: 1.21.1.7 with: Xwayland v: 22.1.9
    compositor: gnome-shell driver: X: loaded: modesetting,nvidia
    unloaded: fbdev,vesa alternate: nouveau,nv dri: iris
    gpu: i915,nvidia,nvidia-nvswitch tty: 80x24
  Monitor-1: HDMI-A-1 model: LG (GoldStar) Ultra HD serial: <filter>
    built: 2017 res: 3840x2160 dpi: 163 gamma: 1.2
    size: 600x340mm (23.62x13.39") diag: 690mm (27.2") ratio: 16:9 modes:
    max: 3840x2160 min: 640x480
  Monitor-2: eDP-1 model: BOE Display NE156FHM-NX6 built: 2022
    res: 1920x1080 dpi: 142 gamma: 1.2 size: 344x194mm (13.54x7.64")
    diag: 395mm (15.5") ratio: 16:9 modes: 1920x1080
  API: OpenGL Message: GL data unavailable in console for root.
Last edited by Texlee on 2024-02-20 09:43, edited 1 time in total.

Texlee
Posts: 58
Joined: 2024-01-05 15:10
Has thanked: 4 times

Re: Very big difference in graphic performance

#14 Post by Texlee »

However, whatever application I use, I max out at 60fps, even glxgears.
So what could set this limit that I don't have with the internal monitor?

mrmazda
Posts: 357
Joined: 2023-06-02 02:22
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: Very big difference in graphic performance

#15 Post by mrmazda »

According to xrandr output provided here, the external port supports no more than 60Hz. 3840x2160 is 4X as many pixels to manage as the 1920x1080 internal @120. @144 is still much less work to do. You haven't specified the CPU that provides your IGP, so I checked a Raptor Lake i9-14900K and see it only supports 120Hz on an internal display, while externals are limited to 60Hz. Perhaps this limitation applies even though you have the NVidia 4050 onboard?

Texlee
Posts: 58
Joined: 2024-01-05 15:10
Has thanked: 4 times

Re: Very big difference in graphic performance

#16 Post by Texlee »

mrmazda wrote: 2024-02-20 20:33 According to xrandr output provided here, the external port supports no more than 60Hz. 3840x2160 is 4X as many pixels to manage as the 1920x1080 internal @120. @144 is still much less work to do. You haven't specified the CPU that provides your IGP, so I checked a Raptor Lake i9-14900K and see it only supports 120Hz on an internal display, while externals are limited to 60Hz. Perhaps this limitation applies even though you have the NVidia 4050 onboard?
I've done several tests and the computer is behaving strangely. The most likely thing is that since the monitor is at 60Hz it cannot display more than 60 fps even if with windows I double them. At this point I really believe that there are no solutions and that the problem is linux + nvidia.

Texlee
Posts: 58
Joined: 2024-01-05 15:10
Has thanked: 4 times

Re: Very big difference in graphic performance

#17 Post by Texlee »

But there are other strange things always on a graphic level. For example, every now and then my screen freezes for no reason. Every now and then I have the wheel that loads instead of the mouse for no apparent reason. From terminal as root I can't launch programs that use the gui. In short, many things that are not acceptable for a main and stable computer.

arzgi
Posts: 1203
Joined: 2008-02-21 17:03
Location: Finland
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: Very big difference in graphic performance

#18 Post by arzgi »

Texlee wrote: 2024-02-22 14:08

I've done several tests and the computer is behaving strangely. The most likely thing is that since the monitor is at 60Hz it cannot display more than 60 fps even if with windows I double them. At this point I really believe that there are no solutions and that the problem is linux + nvidia.
I was going to say too, perhaps your monitor can' t do any better. If have manual for your monitor, or search the spcecs, if you are still interested,

Better open a new thread for your freeze problems.

Texlee
Posts: 58
Joined: 2024-01-05 15:10
Has thanked: 4 times

Re: Very big difference in graphic performance

#19 Post by Texlee »

arzgi wrote: 2024-02-22 15:44
Texlee wrote: 2024-02-22 14:08

I've done several tests and the computer is behaving strangely. The most likely thing is that since the monitor is at 60Hz it cannot display more than 60 fps even if with windows I double them. At this point I really believe that there are no solutions and that the problem is linux + nvidia.
I was going to say too, perhaps your monitor can' t do any better. If have manual for your monitor, or search the spcecs, if you are still interested,

Better open a new thread for your freeze problems.
I tried it on windows and the fps is 110. Maybe I can't see them because the monitor is at 60Hz but the video card can generate 110.

Linuxgaming1824
Posts: 109
Joined: 2024-04-16 18:30
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Very big difference in graphic performance

#20 Post by Linuxgaming1824 »

There are actually a ton of factors involved that add up to produce the end result with graphical issues.

If you're using an external 4k display and testing games on it, you will want to consider the monitors settings,
the quality of your connection cable(hdmi will support up to 120hz display port will support above 120hz generally)
and there are different versions of hdmi and display port cables that have improved capabilities. If your monitor settings are
set for hd or tv mode instead of pc mode then it will be locked at 60 fps. Then you will also want to consider the display settings,
in the operating system as well, and if you have nvidia then you have access to the nvidia-settings app to manage your display settings, and you can configure multiple monitors from there and other related settings as well...

Also if you are using the external display and internal display at the same time, you can expect to have degraded performance,
so for the best performance ideally you will want to use display settings (such as through nvidia-settings) to disable the "internal" laptop monitor, and only enable the external display.

There are lots of other considerations too...what is your display server? Hopefully for gaming it's x11. What's your graphics card? graphics driver? what desktop environment are you using? compositor? what are the compositors settings?

Also, what options do you have in your bios/uefi system settings to alter the graphic card you are using? If you have a built-in graphics card, and nvidia too, can you disable the internal graphics card, and just use nvidia?

All of these factors, and more, add up to produce the end result: the performance you can possibly achieve with various games..

Post Reply