Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Thread: Looking At The OpenCL Performance Of ATI & NVIDIA On Linux

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,697

    Default Looking At The OpenCL Performance Of ATI & NVIDIA On Linux

    Phoronix: Looking At The OpenCL Performance Of ATI & NVIDIA On Linux

    Recently we provided the first Linux-based review of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 graphics card. Overall, this Fermi-based graphics card was a great performer for selling around $200 USD and is complemented by great video playback capabilities with VDPAU acceleration and great proprietary driver support. In that review we primarily looked at the OpenGL performance under Linux, but with NVIDIA's Fermi architecture bringing great GPGPU advancements for CUDA and OpenCL users too, in this article we are looking more closely at the Open Computing Language performance of this GF104 graphics card as well as other NVIDIA and ATI graphics cards.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15257

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    642

    Default

    thanks for those tests !

    why weren't the Cypress GPUs not included (5850, 5870) and only the smaller Junipers ?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    32

    Default

    And what about SmallLuxGpu ?

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
    why weren't the Cypress GPUs not included (5850, 5870) and only the smaller Junipers ?
    No access to such hardware...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    145

    Default

    What about the FirePro's? Could be fun to see if they are that much faster in OpenCL than the consumer cards.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    642

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    No access to such hardware...
    ah - thanks for the clarification !

    it's just that the results look rather in favor of Nvidia

    do you have a 5830 available (afaik that's a cypress LE) ?

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
    ah - thanks for the clarification !

    it's just that the results look rather in favor of Nvidia

    do you have a 5830 available (afaik that's a cypress LE) ?
    Nope... Any and all GPUs you would have seen in a review. Only Evergreen ASICs I have are the HD 5550 and HD 5570 and an HD 5450 - that I actually bought and am in the process of reviewing.

  8. #8

    Default

    do any of those benchmarks use double precision floating point?

    (and as always: it would be nice if you could put error bars on the plots)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    368

    Default

    MandelGPU might suffer from something similar (redefining __constant to __global), but I haven't checked.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    989

    Default

    Hmm. On my HD5970 for SmallPT 1.6 GPU Caustic3, I'm getting 45200 KSamples/sec on the GPU, and ~16000 KSamples/sec on my Core i7 920. Neither part is overclocked; they're at their factory default clock rates.

    The GPU number is lower than either of Michael's radeons, but still a ways faster than Michael's GT 240. The numbers seem unaffected by whether compiz is on. I find it hard to accept that a HD5970 gets poorer results than a 5770. Even if a HD5970 is two 5850 cores together, shouldn't even one of those cores single-handedly outperform a 5770? And wouldn't OpenCL have the smarts to use both cores automatically to make it nearly twice as fast?

    I noticed something funky about the tests, though. When the test is running, the output visual says at the bottom something like 52000K samples/sec. This is substantially larger than the 45000 Ksamples/sec reported by PTS in the output. I'm not sure why such the large discrepancy. Bug in PTS? Bug in the test?

    Either way, it seems (disappointingly) that a HD5970 is only 3 times faster at this test than a Core i7? It is probably more economical to use a bunch of CPUs than to use GPUs for this kind of workload, seeing how a Core i7 is much cheaper than a dual gpu HD5970. We already know from other tests that a GPU is many, many, many times faster than the CPU at OpenGL 3d rendering, so maybe the parts needed for general purpose GPGPU are kept to a modest level on Evergreen in order to support top-of-the-line 3d graphics. I'm not complaining, since I don't use GPGPU for anything other than PTS

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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