Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 57

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

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Toronto/North Bay Canada
    Posts
    877

    Default

    2d performance is looking good with the OSS driver .

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greg View Post
    NVidia's later binary drivers perform very well now, at least in my experience.
    not for me. I still consider KDE4 unusable on both my 7600GT and my Quadro NVM 140 (~8800M).
    But KDE3 works fine, so I'm fine for now

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    122

    Default

    Well, it's a bit strange. In synthetic benchmarks (like done by Phoronix), the NVidia drivers perform extremely well. A few quick benches (w/ JXRenderMark) show that XRender performance is a lot better (than a Radeon 3850 w/ OSS drivers) on a GeForce 8600 GT despite the hardware being a lot slower.

    Just a few XRender operations are slow on NVidia; gradients aren't accelerated, for example. Maybe KDE depends on these operations being fast?

  4. #14
    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.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Toronto/North Bay Canada
    Posts
    877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rohcQaH View Post
    not for me. I still consider KDE4 unusable on both my 7600GT and my Quadro NVM 140 (~8800M).
    But KDE3 works fine, so I'm fine for now
    my 7950 works perfectly fine out of the box. Maybe u buy cursed hardware.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    West Australia
    Posts
    372

    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. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    185

    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. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    515

    Default

    I think the oss performance is pretty impressive compared to the early age of the driver. I don't think they even have done any optimizing yet?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    33

    Default

    I'm interested if the OpenSource drivers downclock the GPU properly as they should to save power?

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greg View Post
    Well, it's a bit strange. In synthetic benchmarks (like done by Phoronix), the NVidia drivers perform extremely well. A few quick benches (w/ JXRenderMark) show that XRender performance is a lot better (than a Radeon 3850 w/ OSS drivers) on a GeForce 8600 GT despite the hardware being a lot slower.

    Just a few XRender operations are slow on NVidia; gradients aren't accelerated, for example. Maybe KDE depends on these operations being fast?
    The software renderer for X.org is going to be very efficient.

    "Hardware acceleration" != Faster

    I don't know the particulars for this driver, but it is common to run into OSS drivers that can perform these benchmarks faster, but in real-world desktops be much slower.

    The deal is that if you have a mixture of software rendering and hardware rendering it means your doing lots of context switching and moving memory objects back and forth from the video ram to main ram.

    So in synthetic benchmarks like this were a most of the operations are running in software you will actually get impressive performance.. but as soon as you start to mix hardware acceleration features into the mix then performance and efficiency dives.

    So as result OSS drivers improve the performance on these benchmarks will actually likely _go_down_ as they move from mixed software/hardware rendering to performing all the operations on the GPU, which in many cases is slower then running it on the CPU.

Posting Permissions

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