Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 61

Thread: ATI R500 Gallium3D Performance In June 2010

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,411

    Default ATI R500 Gallium3D Performance In June 2010

    Phoronix: ATI R500 Gallium3D Performance In June 2010

    The past several months have been very exciting in the world of Gallium3D, the new graphics driver architecture for Linux and other operating systems that has been in development for years. This year we have witnessed the emergence of LLVMpipe to accelerate OpenGL commands on the CPU, Nouveau's Gallium3D driver starting to work well, and many other advancements. Over the past few months we have also been pleased with how the "R300g" driver has taken shape with this Gallium3D driver for ATI Radeon R300/400/500 series hardware (up through the Radeon X1000 series) stabilizing, performing well, and advancing beyond the classic Mesa 3D R300 driver. Today we have a fresh set of benchmarks looking at this ATI Gallium3D driver that soon will become the default.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15000

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    258

    Default

    The suspiciously flat line performance of the Gallium3D drive in most tests makes me think that this driver is still very CPU-bond (software fallbacks?). Can anyone confirm or dismiss this?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Could you do the same test with low end R500 or mid end R300/R400 cards?

    I'm always going to 800x600 on my Radeon 9600 to get better FPS in Nexuiz on classic Mesa. I wonder how good/bad FPS I can get with Gallium3D now.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    My Parents Basement
    Posts
    52

    Default

    As you can imagine probably it would be interesting which commit caused the regression. But maybe it's not so easy to find out with git-biselect because there is so much working at the code...?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    166

    Default

    Those benchmarks are good as they spot obvious potential issues.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    328

    Default

    It would be even more interesting if catalyst 9.3 numbers were show too.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    It would be even more interesting if catalyst 9.3 numbers were show too.
    Well, from an open source fan boy, catalyst can go to hell...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Eire
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sylware View Post
    Well, from an open source fan boy, catalyst can go to hell...
    Well, from a fellow open source fan boy, I'd quite like to see the comparision with that last usable fglrx too.

    C'mon, 3D accel is generally the only reason so many people use fglrx in the first place, so a comparision to show how far the open drivers are coming along in a series of 3D benchmarks is relevant...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    Catalyst will go to hell much sooner if the OSS stack can match (or approach) its 3D performance.

    So bring on the comparison, so we can see how far we still have to go!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,753

    Default

    Is this with VSync on or off?

Posting Permissions

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