Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40

Thread: Catalyst vs. Mesa Performance With Ubuntu 10.04

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,567

    Default Catalyst vs. Mesa Performance With Ubuntu 10.04

    Phoronix: Catalyst vs. Mesa Performance With Ubuntu 10.04

    Over the past two weeks, we have published a variety of articles looking at different aspects of the open-source Linux graphics stack. These articles range from comparing the Gallium3D and classic Mesa performance to comparing the kernel mode-setting and user-space mode-setting performance. Today we are continuing with this interesting Linux graphics coverage by publishing benchmarks comparing the performance of the Radeon Mesa DRI graphics driver to AMD's Catalyst 10.4 proprietary driver. Is the open-source driver finally catching up to AMD's highly optimized driver? Continue reading to find out.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14718

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Nice benchmark. Thank you for that test.

    But it would be fairer if you had used mesa 7.8 instead of 7.7. The used catalyst is also a beta driver.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    45

    Default

    great article. more, please!

    I would like to see a side to side comparison of ATI vs Nvidia performance in Linux at some point. Maybe a nice table for features that are implemented in (a) ATI closed-source, (b) ATI open-source, (b) Nvidia closed-source and (d) Nvidia nouveau drivers...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    985

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix
    We began this testing by looking at the MPlayer H.264 video playback performance by monitoring the CPU usage when playing a sample file using X-Video (...)
    The CPU usage was actually slightly higher with the Catalyst 10.4 package, but by only about 2%
    I think you are being very nice to fglrx here. The peak CPU usage was considerably higher with fglrx in this test. And that's what can make the difference between playable and not playable. Besides with all the tearing and washed out colors only a Barbarian would actually use Xv with fglrx .

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    PL
    Posts
    910

    Default

    i think we could use some tests with older hardware that's still fglrx supported.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    573

    Default

    it's just a matter of facts. if you want serious 3d performance, then you'll have to use fglrx. things might change, but for sure not before mid 2011, around ubuntu 11.04 .

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Maybe a bit offtopic. but are there any test like gtkperf for qt4 ? and could those be included in such articles in the future ?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    328

    Default

    nice!, It should be very interesting to test mesa 7.9-devel too!! using xorg-edgers ppa.

  9. #9

    Default

    Regarding 2D performance, you should try it with the Direct2D acceleration settings as right now you are comparing hw xrender vs software.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    174

    Default

    It's nice to see X-Plane among these tests. I thought it wouldn't even start with mesa and it works! I can't understand though why you posted only the fps at the highest resolution - it would have been interesting to see how it worked at 1280x1024 and other normal resolutions.

Posting Permissions

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