Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 74

Thread: Radeon 3D Performance: Gallium3D vs. Classic Mesa

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pvtcupcakes View Post
    Michael would have to spend money though.

    Edit: Oh, there is a demo at least.
    I already own Doom 3, Quake 4, ET:QW, etc. But last I knew Doom 3 didn't run well with Mesa -- either classic or Gallium3D.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Los Gatos, CA
    Posts
    3

    Default gallium versus no gallium etc...

    Quote Originally Posted by pvtcupcakes View Post
    Michael would have to spend money though.

    Edit: Oh, there is a demo at least.
    Folks, couple of things I would appreciate help in:
    1) I think I have almost everything working running Debian,
    except the shading setup with HD3870 X2
    Built KMS/drm support using a pristine 2.6.33.1 kernel, Mesa-7.8-rc1 (nouveau but not Gallium). Has anyone figures on what performance figures to expect (alternatives Gallium-Wine-Xorg-flgrx?)

    Right now I have:

    $ glxinfo | grep render
    direct rendering: Yes
    OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI R600 (RV670 9509) 20090101 TCL DRI2

    used latest firmware from linux-firmware.git:
    http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kerne...git;a=shortlog

    $ LIBGL_DEBUG=verbose glxinfo 2>/dev/null | grep -i opengl
    OpenGL vendor string: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
    OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI R600 (RV670 9509) 20090101 TCL DRI2
    OpenGL version string: 1.5 Mesa 7.7.1-DEVEL
    OpenGL extensions:
    ------> OpenGL shading language version string: xxx missing ???
    1) should I downgrade to R500?

    2) is performance what is expected:
    $ glxgears -info
    11337 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2267.288 FPS
    other more complete 3D benchmarks?

    Thanks in advance. -- Pat

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    983

    Default

    Hmm... well, Mesa itself should support all of those games almost perfectly, still not sure about any of the radeon drivers.

    Anyone feel like trying them out and updating http://www.x.org/wiki/RadeonProgram ?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 0e8h View Post
    Probably better to be at a constant fps then climbing the highest hill as this would be best for power saving on laptops and smoothness. What's the point of rendering frames that missing the screen's refresh rate. 60fps should the be the cap on most gfx driver settings.

    Anyone think otherwise?
    Easy. Input lag. 1 second/60 frames = 16ms. 1/120 = 8ms. The difference is very noticeable, ask any decent musician or pro player.

    Why should I wait 16ms for my shot to fire when I can wait 8ms... I'll hear it and it'll get sent to the server sooner, even if I don't see it that fast.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    153

    Default

    As Michael said, the constant framerate is probably due to syscall overhead. Dave pushed a handful of things that should amortize that a bit, and there's still more optimizations that could be done.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Thanks for providing some developer insight rather than just a fuck ton of numbers like the benchmarks usually are. This actually made for an interesting read.

    I have one suggestion though, could you pick colours that are easier to distinguish. I have a very difficult time figuring out which line is which driver. Could be because i'm dichromatic (red/green colour blind). Maybe make one line a bright colour and the other a darker.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by garytr24 View Post
    Easy. Input lag. 1 second/60 frames = 16ms. 1/120 = 8ms. The difference is very noticeable, ask any decent musician or pro player.

    Why should I wait 16ms for my shot to fire when I can wait 8ms... I'll hear it and it'll get sent to the server sooner, even if I don't see it that fast.
    I'm guessing the amount of pro players here are pretty small

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Die trolls, die!
    Posts
    525

    Default

    Thanks for the article. It was a good read. I liked the insight it provided along with the numbers too which cleared up many questions I had about the performance.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Hey that was pleasantly unexpected (the results)

    When Gallium3D gets optimized (somewhere in the distant future, right?) then will it be faster than classic Mesa?

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    447

    Default libdrm from git is also required

    Quote Originally Posted by MostAwesomeDude View Post
    When you build Mesa with --enable-gallium-radeon, you'll get a radeong_dri.so library.
    There's also the small matter of needing libdrm to define:
    Code:
    #define RADEON_BO_FLAGS_MICRO_TILE_SQUARE 0x20
    That's not in 2.4.18.

Posting Permissions

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