Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Catalyst 15.7 Linux Benchmarks: R9 290 Hawaii & R9 285 Tonga

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AMD Catalyst 15.7 Linux Benchmarks: R9 290 Hawaii & R9 285 Tonga

    Phoronix: AMD Catalyst 15.7 Linux Benchmarks: R9 290 Hawaii & R9 285 Tonga

    I'm in the midst of a new large open-source and (separately) closed-source NVIDIA/AMD Linux graphics card comparison on the latest drivers as part of an upcoming Radeon R7 370 Linux review and to be followed by R9 Fury Linux benchmarks. However, for those interested in the Catalyst 15.7 benchmarks on Linux, I ran some quick tests with a Radeon R9 285 and R9 290...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    OK, so Catalyst is faster than the open source stack again. Competition is good

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite


    (scroll down to TF2 2560x1600)
    Test signature

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by bridgman View Post
      OK, so Catalyst is faster than the open source stack again. Competition is good

      Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite


      (scroll down to TF2 2560x1600)
      **re-reads article**
      **still confused**

      What article were you reading?

      Comment


      • #4
        Bridgman's link is about radeonSI tests, look at the introduction page

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by liam View Post

          **re-reads article**
          **still confused**

          What article were you reading?
          Article mostly point out that new fglrx (150 fps) is faster then older fglrx in TF2 (100 fps)... and bridgman compare that with opensource driver (130 fps).

          IMO bigger resolutions used aren't usefull to compare like that, because fglrx will be also slower there but anyway
          Last edited by dungeon; 09 July 2015, 11:32 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by siavashserver
            As an Arch user I still do prefer slightly slower open source drivers + pain free kernel upgrades
            Yeah, I'm the same with my Radeon 7670+i7 combo on Arch. I really shouldn't be though if I want to game on this thing properly.
            Hi

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by siavashserver
              As an Arch user I still do prefer slightly slower open source drivers + pain free kernel upgrades
              I prefer the best driver, OpenCL 2.0 support building Blender.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by siavashserver
                As an Arch user I still do prefer slightly slower open source drivers + pain free kernel upgrades
                pain-free kernel upgrades??
                This comment is about the same level as a windows troll saying you need to program C to use linux.

                Just install catalyst-hook from the catalyst repo and there is no pain but joy. always and forever.

                Comment


                • #9
                  What is the age of Arch linux developers on average today? Few years back that was bellow 18 years AFAIR

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    dungeon and @andrei_me

                    I know he linked to a test from November but there been a mesa release since then and the rezs were different, I believe

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X