Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 109

Thread: Open-Source ATI R600/700 Mesa 3D Performance

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    92

    Default

    Video decoding: GL2
    Video decoding: X-Video
    Neither of them does decode the video, they just do colorspace conversation and scaling.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Nice test by the way...not to shaby.

    What's wrong with HD2600PRO in the last test...looks like budget cards are actually made junk that can be slow.

    Not yet for series 5 support well it's OK...i'm not in gaming nor using Blender so, Nexuiz can even run on my poor G31 almost ok, it's fine with me.

    Keep up the good work...donations are coming someday pretty soon.
    Linux is a lifesaver...

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bolzerrr View Post
    Interesting would be to compare those Result with fglrx results
    +1

    Exactly what I was thinking. It would be nice to know when we are nearing (maybe even exceeding at some point?) the performance of the official drivers.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    565

    Default How about Open Source vs Catalyst?

    Michael,

    Dou you think you can run some tests for just one given card, comparing performance with the Open Source stack against the Catalyst driver?

    Here is my own test (I wonder if the factor 5 in 3D performance is representative):
    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...483-2293-23385

    My test is current Kubuntu Lucid open source, against Catalyst in Karmic.

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mendieta View Post
    Michael,

    Dou you think you can run some tests for just one given card, comparing performance with the Open Source stack against the Catalyst driver?

    Here is my own test (I wonder if the factor 5 in 3D performance is representative):
    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...483-2293-23385

    My test is current Kubuntu Lucid open source, against Catalyst in Karmic.
    When I get back to the office next week I plan to run Catalyst vs. Open-Source on an R600, RV670, and RV770.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bolzerrr View Post
    Interesting would be to compare those Result with fglrx results
    I second that. See my post just above, I did run one test of that kind, and it looks to me that we will have to wait for the Q4 2010 distributions to have reasonable 3D performance. Q2 distributions will have excellent 2D and some 3D for basic gaming I think. This is consistent with what I am hearing from the gurus here. But it would be nice to quantify "how much slower" it'll be to run the Open Source stack.

    Oh, and for taht comparison, it would be nice to add 2D, too.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by misiu_mp View Post
    You can obviously see that tremoulus is bottlenecked somewhere else than the graphics performance. The framerates stay the same on most resolutions for most of the cards.
    The results arent much dependent on the performance of the graphics card alone (all 48xx lines are virtually identical).
    This is so obvious, Mike should have commented on this, instead of just saying "Tremoulus is more demanding". Something else is afoot there.
    Maybe the bottleneck is the drivers themselves. This seems much more plausible.

    Quote Originally Posted by colo View Post
    Am I the only one who thinks the graphing of the results is absolutely abhorrent? To get any valuable information out of the mess that is, for example, the GL and XV video performance graphs, they should have been at least two times their size. It'd also be nice to have access to the numeric data in tabular form as an option. More often than not, I'd like to compare numbers instead of trying hard to figure out which shade of $colour represents which cardů
    Yes, Phoronix is known for its awful graphs.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    448

    Default It depends what you are interested in

    Quote Originally Posted by mendieta View Post
    Dou you think you can run some tests for just one given card, comparing performance with the Open Source stack against the Catalyst driver?
    I have a HD4670 in a laptop/docking station, and a HD4890, Radeon 9550, Radeon 9200 and Radeon 7000 in other desktop machines. The laptop/docking station is running F10 with fglrx 9.11, and is the only machine capable of running World of Warcraft these days. However, when it comes to 2D desktop performance, all my desktop machines (which are running F12) dance rings around the laptop while laughing hysterically.

    Actually, I think even my old Matrox G400 MAX beats my HD4670's performance under fglrx, because fglrx is targeted at the older X servers that ship with "Enterprise" distributions. I don't think it's valid to claim that fglrx is compatible with non-Enterprise distros any more. It's certainly a sick joke with on Fedora 10, with OpenGL as its only semi-redeeming feature.

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattst88 View Post
    Yes, Phoronix is known for its awful graphs.

    That will change by PTS3 when we will be known for delivering the best graphs

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    127

    Thumbs down

    Why no comparison with fglrx? When 2d performance of the open source drivers are benched by Phoronix (an area in which the open source driver performs quite good compared to fglrx) the results are always compared with fglrx.

    Now you are measuring 3d performance, which open source won't win from fglrx and you leave fglrx out. It would be nice to see how far off the open source driver stack is from the proprietary driver.

Posting Permissions

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