Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: r300g: Is it really accelerated?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    76

    Default

    The DRM-development builds are:
    the tip of the drm-next head of Dave Airlie's drm-2.6 repository daily

    https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/MainlineBuilds

    But shouldn't be so differrent as r300g seems +/- stable ?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    631

    Default

    I know that Lightsmark is slow. Is any other driver faster? What about Intel? I remember when Lightsmark was released and by that time it was a damn demanding benchmark, I tried to run it on R500, it was slow even with fglrx IIRC.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    983

    Default

    I'm getting an average of 20 fps on an RV570. I can't recall that Intel is any faster.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,003

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whizse View Post
    I can't recall that Intel is any faster.
    Not a surprise. Intel driver is so slow that it will probably become slower than llvmpipe in the future

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,578

    Default

    21 fps with HD4200 IGP, proprietary drivers on Win7, 1920x1200...

    ... if anyone cares

    A lot of the tests were running down around 7-8 fps.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Beiruty, if you make a compeling argument about why r300g+R520 should be fast in Lightsmark, we may have a look at what's slow there and fix it. But see if fglrx is faster first.

    Also I had a discussion with the author of Lightsmark (he's from the same country as me, and presented some alpha version of Lightsmark for a local game development community here) a few years ago and IIRC indirect lighting (i.e. radiosity) in his benchmark was computed on the CPU, while direct lighting and shadows were computed on the GPU, so GPU performance might not matter that much if you're CPU-limited.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Marek,

    Thanks a lot for your feedback. I do not have flgrx to run at this time. I installed a new kernel .36 RC6 and now the score is at 6.93

    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...0174-28324-504

    I understand if the the bench is CPU limitied. My CPU is 2.4 Ghz and bit old too.


    I will try other tests.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Since the there is lightmark 2008 for windows. I dual boot and run it under xp.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    134

    Default

    I douwnloaded and installed lightsmark 2008 V2 on winxp. It run and it sarted great between 30 fps and 60 fps with Audio Music. However, less than a minute screen corruption started showing and crashed the video card.

    I guess AMD OpenGL on winxp are not that great either! But I saw amazing fps!

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,003

    Default

    Open drivers bite the dust when compared to closed ones, it's nothing new...

Posting Permissions

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