Intel Windows vs. Linux GPU Performance Q4'2010
Phoronix: Intel Windows vs. Linux GPU Performance Q4'2010
Yesterday we shared benchmarks of the ATI R600 Gallium3D driver compared against the classic Mesa R600 driver and then the proprietary AMD Catalyst driver. The proprietary driver was much faster than the open-source drivers were, but the Gallium3D driver did possess higher performance in most of the tests than with the classic Mesa driver. This is similar to the R300 Gallium3D driver being faster than its now-deprecated R300 classic driver. Meanwhile though Intel continues to back only their classic Mesa DRI driver and there are no signs of them switching over to the Gallium3D architecture anytime soon. It is not as if Intel's current Mesa driver is feature-complete and performance-optimized as our tests from earlier this year show Intel's Linux graphics performance being far behind their Windows driver. In this article though we are seeing where the Intel Mesa performance is at when using the very latest DRM and Mesa code.
This is much more comparable than it used to be.
Yeah, when I read the title I said "Meh!" but when I read the post I was surprised with the boost of Linux driver.
I looked at the previous benchmark, and wow, the improvement is huge.
In this benchmark, there were four tests. In two Linux is the clear loser (OpenArena, Nexuiz), but by a factor of two at the maximum, which is bad but not devastating. In one, Urban Terror, it was kinda a tie -- Linux the winner at lower resolutions, Windows the winner at higher ones. And Warsow was a clear Linux win.
The previous benchmark of half a year ago had only two tests (which in itself implies Intel is now able to execute more tests), in one of which -- Nexuiz -- Linux was lagging behind by a factor of ~10, and the second (Warsow) was slightly behind.
Maybe Phoromatic should start tracking mesa-git? Seems like that is where a lot of work is going currently.
The reason why I haven't done this is due to Mesa's dependencies on libdrm being bumped, etc. And the fact that some of the magic happens within the DRM code too, so technically the optimal way to track it would be to have one system tracking the DRM changes, another system tracking the Mesa changes, and then a third system tracking the DRM and Mesa changes simultaneously. But I don't have three identical systems to dedicate towards this task at the moment.
Originally Posted by loonyphoenix
Can't this be done on a single machine? Three different independent systems in three different partitions, with timed reboots between them. Seems like 8 hours should be enough to run the few graphics tests available right now.
Originally Posted by Michael
Beats AMD and NVIDIA!
This beats AMD and NVIDIA by a long shot in relative terms. At least AMD supports Open Source, but for both AMD/ATI and NVIDIA, the open source drivers are several times (2 to 10) times slower than their best (binary) drivers. For Intel, the open source drivers are in the same ballpark, which is MUCH, much better.
In my book, Intel > AMD/ATI > NVIDIA
I wish Intel will start producing discrete graphics card, they would become the obvious choice (right now it is AMD for me).
So basically we are being penalized for having really fast binary drivers. Life is so unfair
Tungsten is crap than, OpenArena runs fine couple single player maps, if too complex than FPS drops on G31. Someday i will upgrade to HD 2400 Radeon, that's plenty of power for Linux native games.
Tags for this Thread