Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: ATI R500: Mesa vs. Catalyst Benchmarking

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    260

    Default

    Well, I guess it's to be expected, it's only been released for a day or something. Hopefully in the future, they will be faster.
    Michael, for the games that didn't work, was it because of the unavailability of S3TC (libtxc-dxtn) ? Because the same games that didn't work here didn't work with the OSS driver on my Radeon 9200 SE until I added the S3TC support library.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    521

    Default

    The UT 2004 results are impressive.

    Btw: Am I the only one missing horizontal graphs in pts?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    101

    Default

    I guess the radeon driver did not everything fglrx did in UT2004. At least for S3TC textures you have explicitly install libs3tc, since mesa does not contain the code for licensensig reasons. And UT2004 uses s3tc everywhere...

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [Knuckles] View Post
    The UT 2004 results are impressive.

    Btw: Am I the only one missing horizontal graphs in pts?
    Hear hear! I kept turning my head 90 degrees to read the legends on the bottom. It would also make more sense to use colors, with one color for the MESA driver, and one for the fglrx driver, then grouping them by card type.

    X1300 MESA ------------------
    X1300 fglrx ==================================
    X1850 MESA ------------------------
    X1800 flgrx ================================================

    More compact, more readable, and easier to compare. This is personally the biggest weakness of the Phoronix reviews, the lousy graphs and lack of color use.

    Interesting review though, and makes me hopeful that my X1650 will be a reasonalby fast card one day, certainly enough for Compiz and some games with my kid as he gets older.

    John

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1

    Default

    I'm not sure why everyone is so disappointed at the "poor" performance. I would say the benchmarks for the x1800xl are at least what I consider to be playable. I think it's amazing that an open source driver can extract this much performance out of these cards at 1920x1200!

    I own a 4870 and it's really lame that we have show-stopping bugs like the checkerboard of doom in the latest proprietary drivers. I for one can't wait for the day when I can play games with an open source driver.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    598

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by l8gravely View Post
    X1300 MESA ------------------
    X1300 fglrx ==================================
    X1850 MESA ------------------------
    X1800 flgrx ================================================
    Actually the graphs was ordered as

    X1300 MESA ------------------
    X1850 MESA ------------------------
    X1300 fglrx ==================================
    X1800 flgrx ================================================

    which I felt was very confusing, as this suggests that you should compare the MESA with each other and not MESA vs flgrx.

    Otherwise I think article was perfect! I love the Phoronix articles!

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Louise View Post
    Actually the graphs was ordered as

    X1300 MESA ------------------
    X1850 MESA ------------------------
    X1300 fglrx ==================================
    X1800 flgrx ================================================

    which I felt was very confusing, as this suggests that you should compare the MESA with each other and not MESA vs flgrx.

    Otherwise I think article was perfect! I love the Phoronix articles!
    That's what I was trying to get across, that the graphs could have used color, orientation and better organization to showcase the differences more easily. Since we read (most of us) Left to Right, it would make sense to have the graphs laid out in the same orientation. Those big, phat^Wfat, wide bars drive me crazy.

    Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy the articles and I think they're doing a great service here for all of us OSS fans and AMD/ATI fans. I purposefully picked this hardware becase of the open docs. Sorry nVidia, you're not in the running...

    John

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    69

    Default

    how about some compiz benchmarks? I find compiz much smoother on MESA as compared to FGLRX

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Extreme Coder View Post
    Michael, for the games that didn't work, was it because of the unavailability of S3TC (libtxc-dxtn) ? Because the same games that didn't work here didn't work with the OSS driver on my Radeon 9200 SE until I added the S3TC support library.
    Doom3demo works without S3TC on my 9250 with ati radeon driver.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Nexuiz in fact is very sensitive to how the VBO support behaves. At least some months ago on my Radeon mobility 9000 with the radeon driver it would usually help to disable usage of VBOs in Nexuiz (gl_vbo 0). There are plenty of values to try:

    gl_vbo : "3" ("3") : make use of GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object extension to store static geometry in video memory for faster rendering, 0 disables VBO allocation or use, 1 enables VBOs for vertex and triangle data, 2 only for vertex data, 3 for vertex data and triangle data of simple meshes (ones with only one surface)
    Plus notice that without GLSL support Nexuiz will have most "advanced" effects disabled, running with a fixed-pipeline "fallback". At least my Radeon 3850 is actually *slower* with that fixed-pipeline renderer than with the visually more advanced GLSL renderer, so results are easily skewed depending on what capabilities a driver offers.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •