Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 57

Thread: AMD R600/700 2D Performance: Open vs. Closed Drivers

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,397

    Default AMD R600/700 2D Performance: Open vs. Closed Drivers

    Phoronix: AMD R600/700 2D Performance: Open vs. Closed Drivers

    While the ATI Radeon HD 5800 graphics cards were introduced last week, the open-source support for the Radeon HD 2000/3000/4000 series is finally maturing. The Linux 2.6.32 kernel will feature kernel mode-setting support for these ATI R600/700 graphics processors as well as the DRM support for allowing 3D acceleration. The classic Mesa support for the Radeon HD 2000 through Radeon HD 4000 series is maturing and is now able to run basic OpenGL games and applications, while the Gallium3D support is still a ways out. However, now that there is finally the Catalyst 9.10 driver within Ubuntu Karmic Koala that supports the latest kernel, we are finally able to directly compare the performance of AMD's Catalyst driver and that of the latest open-source code. In this article we have benchmarks showing the 2D performance between these two driver options with both an R600 and R700 graphics card.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14223

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    179

    Default

    AFAIK X Server from git/1.7 contains improvements for EXA. So performance should be even better.

  3. #3

    Default

    Interesting test. Btw. it would be nice to see some simple 3D benchmark (Open Arena, Urban Terror etc.) to see if Catalyst is much faster there.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    428

    Default I can't say I'm surprised.

    I own a Radeon HD 4650, and have tested the Catalyst 9.9 driver against it at least. The performance is not good!. World of Warcraft's Launcher program has a very large picture on it, and fglrx takes ages to display it. You can practically see it being drawn, a line of pixels at a time.

    My Radeon 9550 dances rings around the HD 4650 at this task; and the 9550 is using the OSS driver. You can imagine that an ordinary desktop with the HD 4650 is somewhat less than "snappy".

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisr View Post
    I own a Radeon HD 4650, and have tested the Catalyst 9.9 driver against it at least. The performance is not good!. World of Warcraft's Launcher program has a very large picture on it, and fglrx takes ages to display it. You can practically see it being drawn, a line of pixels at a time.

    My Radeon 9550 dances rings around the HD 4650 at this task; and the 9550 is using the OSS driver. You can imagine that an ordinary desktop with the HD 4650 is somewhat less than "snappy".
    As indicated in the article, the increasing dependence on RENDER is where the major differences are.

    This is true for all the benchmarks identified as well as newer versions of Wine.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    West Australia
    Posts
    307

    Default

    This brings me to a question.
    It seems that the old R300 cards and older have good 2D and 3D OSS support. Maybe we need an overall graph / database on what support level vs performance all graphics cards have.

    Ie R300 **** four star OSS
    R700/800 *** three star OSS ?

    That's My 5 cents.. =)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by b15hop View Post
    This brings me to a question.
    It seems that the old R300 cards and older have good 2D and 3D OSS support. Maybe we need an overall graph / database on what support level vs performance all graphics cards have.

    Ie R300 **** four star OSS
    R700/800 *** three star OSS ?

    That's My 5 cents.. =)
    http://wiki.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature
    http://wiki.x.org/wiki/RadeonProgram

    Unfortunately server is down today.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    West Australia
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zajec View Post
    My God! No wonder they say X.Org is bloated ...!

    Actually, now that I've had a quick look. I notice Gallium is looking quite far away. Almost every Gallium feature is a long way off. So if that is miles away then OOS OpenCL will be absolutely ages away. Thinking at least 3 years away..
    Last edited by b15hop; 09-30-2009 at 08:03 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,598

    Default

    fglrx is the worst driver that you can use. the not tested things are much more important like proper xv support (opengl is too slow on lowend cards for hd content). i also wait for working vdpau / vaapi support. for hd content with really high bitrates (vc1/h264 over 30 mbit/s) i can watch em in most cases with radeon oss + xv, but some only work with vdpau without losing a/v sync. I don't know what's the exact reason when a E8400 + xv is not enough - maybe the software decoder has got some problems in rare cases.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Wow, this sure is surprising!

    Given the fact that 2D is done on 3D acceleration on the latest ATI cards, does that mean that basic 3D 'stuff' is als faster than Catalyst with the FLOSS drivers?

Posting Permissions

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