Catalyst vs. Mesa Performance With Ubuntu 10.04

[LinuxID10T]

Urban Terror has a max frame rate of 125, which is what it stays at throughout the entirety of the benchmark with Catalyst. So in actuality Catalyst is even more than 2.5 times as fast as the open source drivers...

[Michael]

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.

Due to a bug in X-Plane 9.45 where its not properly changing modes.

[liangsuilong]

I prefer to use Radeon driver rather than Catalyst.

Catalyst still does not follow the latest driver, nevertheless, I am not an Ubuntu/openSUSE user. Catalyst still crashes on another latest distribution. I just need the driver can run Compiz smoothly and Radeon has better performances on 2D acceleration test. Why don't I choose it?

I just wish Radeon would run gnome-shell and google earth faster. And I'd like to see that Radeon gets VA-API support for HD video acceleration.

[liangsuilong]

I prefer to use Radeon driver rather than Catalyst.

Catalyst still does not follow the latest driver, nevertheless, I am not an Ubuntu/openSUSE user. Catalyst still crashes on another latest distribution. I just need the driver can run Compiz smoothly and Radeon has better performances on 2D acceleration test. Why don't I choose it?

I just wish Radeon would run gnome-shell and google earth faster. And I'd like to see that Radeon gets VA-API support for HD video acceleration.

Sorry, The first sentence in the second paragraph is wrong.

The truth:

Catalyst still does not follow the latest xserver, nevertheless, I am not an Ubuntu/openSUSE user.

[kinsky]

Due to a bug in X-Plane 9.45 where its not properly changing modes.

I got it running on r300 class hardware (X550) with mesa driver (git verision). After a second or so it showed me a message, that my hardware cannot keep up so it will reduce screen details. So I ended up with about 20 FPS without any details (not even a sigle texture, shading only).

Are there any screenshots available from the tests ?

[zhasha]

A little tip for next time Michael: know what you're benchmarking. Things like Xv and XRENDER have NOTHING to do with mesa, and everything to do with the DDX

[Michael]

A little tip for next time Michael: know what you're benchmarking. Things like Xv and XRENDER have NOTHING to do with mesa, and everything to do with the DDX

Right, but if I left the tests out of the article for 2D/video there would be complaints from people wanting the comparison... And naming it "Catalyst vs. Open-Source ATI Driver Performance With Ubuntu 10.04" would be too long.

[Michael]

I got it running on r300 class hardware (X550) with mesa driver (git verision). After a second or so it showed me a message, that my hardware cannot keep up so it will reduce screen details. So I ended up with about 20 FPS without any details (not even a sigle texture, shading only).

Are there any screenshots available from the tests ?

I might from xplane9-iqc profile. There were a few weird textures I remember, but it seemed to get further than you did with R300 ASIC.

[aaaantoine]

Right, but if I left the tests out of the article for 2D/video there would be complaints from people wanting the comparison... And naming it "Catalyst vs. Open-Source ATI Driver Performance With Ubuntu 10.04" would be too long.

Catalyst vs. FOSS Performance...?

[Michael]

Catalyst vs. FOSS Performance...?

If you look around, you'll see I never use the term "FOSS" in any Phoronix article anywhere.