Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 64

Thread: OpenGL3.2 on Catalyst Wine-GL-Exstansion

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AdrenalineJunky View Post
    you have absolutely no way of knowing that.
    i know it! there was also a PTS Profil DELL system witz 2x8core-intel and a 5870 and 64gb ram...

    but michael delete this profil!

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ObiWan View Post
    Hmm there are at least 2 tests from that guy

    One with 8.65.3(ATI Open GL Version 2.1.9000)
    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...923-9841-16162

    and one with 8.65.4(OGL 2.1.9000)
    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...30-28667-14083

    The leaked one was 8.54.2(OGL 2.1.8975) not .3 or was there anonther leak i'm not aware of?
    the leaket driver was name:"8.65.0"/8.65.3 <--

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,577

    Default

    XAA? You've got to be kidding!

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    the leaket driver was name:"8.65.0"/8.65.3 <--
    The leaked Ubuntu Driver was 8.65.2
    (the one from the archive fglrx-8.650-ubuntu9.04-amd64only.7z)

    at least thats what the driver calls itself on my system.

    Code:
    dmesg | grep fglrx
    fglrx: module license 'Proprietary. (C) 2002 - ATI Technologies, Starnberg, GERMANY' taints kernel.
    [fglrx] Maximum main memory to use for locked dma buffers: 7760 MBytes.
    [fglrx]   vendor: 1002 device: 9440 count: 1
    [fglrx] ioport: bar 4, base 0xb000, size: 0x100
    [fglrx] Kernel PAT support is enabled
    [fglrx] module loaded - fglrx 8.65.2 [Jul 14 2009] with 1 minors
    Last edited by ObiWan; 08-16-2009 at 12:35 PM.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,577

    Default

    Heh, seems the results Qaridarium linked to have been promptly removed. ^^

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    127

    Default

    All the tests I have linked to are removed as well. Very strange.
    However... google cache is your friend .

    http://www.google.nl/#q=%22EG+CYPRES...4b95e7430cfd12
    Last edited by Heiko; 08-16-2009 at 04:16 PM.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,577

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heiko View Post
    All the tests I have linked to are removed as well. Very strange.
    However... google cache is your friend .

    http://www.google.nl/#q=%22EG+CYPRES...4b95e7430cfd12
    Yeah, strange as in makes me be even more convinced in that they were fake.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanonyme View Post
    Yeah, strange as in makes me be even more convinced in that they were fake.
    Or not and it is all a big cover up (that is much more fun to believe ). How could Phoronix know whether the results were fake or not? Why weren't they removed yesterday when Michael responded in this topic (if they were fake he could have removed them back than).

    I think somebody messed up (could be Phoronix, an AMD guy or some lucky guy who got his hands on a sample) and now they try to cover everything up.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,577

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heiko View Post
    Or not and it is all a big cover up (that is much more fun to believe ). How could Phoronix know whether the results were fake or not? Why weren't they removed yesterday when Michael responded in this topic (if they were fake he could have removed them back than).

    I think somebody messed up (could be Phoronix, an AMD guy or some lucky guy who got his hands on a sample) and now they try to cover everything up.
    On the other paw, why should Michael have to care if someone did that? I mean, it's not as if he's juridically responsible for the test results he hasn't himself sent...
    It probably is semi-trivial to fake those results at worst by using a hex editor, at best an editor and a compiler, so I wouldn't really trust their validity much unless someone actually confirms them. (which doesn't seem likely)

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,607

    Default

    The results did not look like fakes, but the cpu was really slow. Of course faking is always possible, but i did not see any obivious fakes yet. But wrong results (due to errors which made em run much quicker than normal) i saw already several. Like when you bench against a profile and your display size is smaller then you get better results. Extreme results you see then for vdrift as not the original settings are used then but a fallback default. Other results are also faster but not so extremely false.

Posting Permissions

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