Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51

Thread: AMD Catalyst vs. X.Org Radeon Driver 2D Performance

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    I *think* Radeon uses EXA by default or, at least, Ubuntu enables EXA without user intervention.
    I believe, there is XAA by default (in Ubuntu Intrepid). Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read this, so can't send you a proof link :-/

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    I *think* Radeon uses EXA by default
    No
    or, at least, Ubuntu enables EXA without user intervention.
    Only in development version jaunty, which will be 9.04, while in the test was used 8.10.

  3. #23

    Default

    EXA testing was used. Sorry if that wasn't clear in the article.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    117

    Default

    It would be intresting to test XAA vs EXA also. I have noticed at least when using some windows applications in wine EXA has horrible 2D performance. EXA takes 100% CPU usage at 2.1GHz with EXA while XAA takes only around 10 % when cpu is running at 796MHz. Xserver (Xorg 1.5.2) takes nearly all cpu time when using EXA.

    To me it seems like either wine is too aggresively optimized for XAA or EXA has some hiden performance penalty for the poor drawing code of wine. This is surprising because everything else has visible speed up when I turn EXA on in my system.

    I'm using R200 series mobility radeon.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    753

    Default

    Maybe EXA is not good for r200, who knows. I experience the same performance drop as you had, plus EXA has problems with Mesa also and native apps. Try ppracer and turn on fps counter and you will see on the end of each level 0(zero) fps.

    All this is good with XAA.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Radoboj, Croatia
    Posts
    155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mile View Post
    I am using powerplay with radeon driver on my mobility x1600 for a few months now and it is working great..you need few patches from this brantch I think

    http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~agd5f/x...=agd-powerplay
    It seems that commits to this branch are quite old (April 2008). Are you sure this isn't implemented in Ubuntu intrepid's default radeon driver? Because if it is, then what do I have to add to my xorg.conf to enable it? With stock configuration I get 30-40 minutes longer battery life with fglrx than with radeon driver.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    93

    Default

    17 out of 28?? All that time was spent on an article to reach that determination? Who exactly are the intended beneficiaries of this info when most of us can't even get 8.12 installed and working properly under linux? Just have a look at your own forums.

    This article would have hit the spot if the majority of us have the option of using either proprietary or open source drivers with equal ease. Until we get there though a much better article would have been a comprehensive guide to getting 8.12 working with a particular kernel for a particular distro. Don't get me wrong I appreciate such articles, but at this point in time the 2D issue is a non-sequitor.

    Cheers.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nbi1 View Post
    17 out of 28?? All that time was spent on an article to reach that determination? Who exactly are the intended beneficiaries of this info when most of us can't even get 8.12 installed and working properly under linux? Just have a look at your own forums.
    Well, you must take note of the fact, that the people, on whose systems the driver runs just fine, don't rant as much as the people, on whose systems it fails...
    Occasionally you'll see some statements like "most stable driver ever" or "never had a problem with it actually", but it just gets overwhelmed by people who write about 5 or more posts about their problem, and thus you get the impression that fglrx doesn't work on most systems.
    And honestly, if you've got an X600 with a PCI-AGP bridge (uhm... if these existed for the X600 familiy already, but you get the idea), it's quite probable that these chips aren't tested that well (apart from the fact that it's just too much maintainance work for most vendors).

    Another point is that many people first try to generate rpm or deb files, e.g. as they keep the system cleaner... I, for example, never really could get the driver running with this method. On the other hand, since I'm using the automated installer by fglrx, installation works faster and more reliable than otherwise (even livna repos gave me problems at some point).

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DoDoENT View Post
    With stock configuration I get 30-40 minutes longer battery life with fglrx than with radeon driver.
    Me too running Debian Sid on a Thinkpad and using a X1400 Radeon. According to ThinkWiki over at
    http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/How_to...ement_features
    Xorg's log file should confirm that scaling is indeed enabled once you specify the DynamicClocks option in the Device section. It does not do that in my case and I have absolutely no idea what to do next :-(

    Ideas anyone?

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    182

    Default

    Would these gtk test programs show meaningful/comparable numbers when ported to Windows? Is there any way to see if these drivers in Linux are really squeezing out all the performance the hardware has to offer, or if the Windows drivers still have some unexplored tricks to leverage?

Posting Permissions

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