Page 10 of 21 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 202

Thread: A Big Comparison Of The AMD Catalyst, Mesa & Gallium3D Drive

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pfanne View Post
    fixed that for you o_O
    actually im pretty impressed with some of the benchmarks.
    1/4 of the catalyst performance is pretty good i think.
    and afaik they havent really started doing any optimizations on the cards yet.
    would have loved to see how the old catalyst drivers for r300 performed.
    but thanks for the benchmarks michael!
    Right, my impression of the performance with the r300g vs last working fglrx is simmilar in Nexuiz or Xonotic on Radeon 9600 and X300 but it needs to enable some performance improving features (not lowering picture quality though). Enabling GLSL shaders is one of the options that improves performance to something about twice as without it is most cases but the other options using more GLSL shaders should be used carefully to not drop performance too much.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    215

    Default

    The benchmark really miss the test of low end cards and the test of last forking fglrx for r300-r500 (even that it would need to run on old Ubuntu 8.10).

    Edit:
    And the one-core cpu, 32bit arch, too.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Edit:
    s/forking/working/

    Btw. the test should include the lowest and highest FPS, too and if it could be or where it could be possible to check - what FPS was in the most of the time (median) instead of arithmic average counted. I don't know if any game measures that but it would be useful to have such information, too.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    The main reason why I *cannot* use Fedora/OpenSUSE is that their font rendering sucks. Ubuntu's font rendering is way better.
    Now that the TrueType bytecode patent has expired, future versions shouldn't have this issue.

    Also, for people living where software patents don't apply (like in Europe), you can just install the freetype-freeworld package which gives you exactly the same font rendering as Debian/Ubuntu.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    14

    Default

    I think it would be helpful to include a comparison of somewhat basic feature sets of the drivers being used for the benchmarks. So for example:

    Catalyst:
    Has Page Flipping
    Has <insert feature here>

    r300g:
    Does not have Page Flipping (not enabled or whatever)
    Does not have OpenGL 3 support
    Does not have <insert feature here>

    Just increases awareness and puts the OSS drivers in a better position in one way as they might be performing decently without the respective features.

    Also, what would one have to go through to become a developer from scratch? As in if one does not know programming in the respective language and no knowledge of graphics programming, is not a university student but can spend some time as a part-time dev? I'm just thinking in terms of solving man power issues and spreading the development more into the community.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,514

    Default

    Hi Danny;

    A good first step towards being a developer would be to learn some basic OpenGL programming. You can use OpenGL from a number of different programming languages but it's probably worth picking up C at the same time. You're going to start by copying sample code snippets anyways, so in a sense the programming language doesn't matter as long as you have a working compiler.

    Alternatively, learning to build and install the drivers from source would be a good place to start.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    448

    Default Page Flipping is apparently "DONE", as of Linux 2.6.38

    Quote Originally Posted by Danny View Post
    r300g:
    Does not have Page Flipping (not enabled or whatever)
    That's for r300g and r600g, apparently.

    http://www.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    260

    Default

    catalyst uses multithreading, right?
    what would be the results of the benchmarks without it? (assuming these have been made with multiple cores enabled)
    could it be the oss drivers would be satisfactory if multithreaded?

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisr View Post
    That's for r300g and r600g, apparently.

    http://www.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature

    I confirm, on my RV620 chipset:

    cat /var/log/Xorg.0.log|grep Pageflipping
    7.614] (II) RADEON(0): KMS Pageflipping: enabled

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jakubo View Post
    catalyst uses multithreading, right?
    what would be the results of the benchmarks without it? (assuming these have been made with multiple cores enabled)
    could it be the oss drivers would be satisfactory if multithreaded?
    Yes, the Catalyst driver hands off most of the rendering work to a separate thread, allowing it to return more quickly to the calling application.

    The open source devs have done some preliminary testing with fglrx on a single core system -- right now the open driver with rendering stubbed out is still slower than fglrx running on a single core. The initial conclusion from that testing is that while multithreading will probably be part of the eventual solution there are other, bigger bottlenecks that need to be looked at first.

    If multithreading were easy to implement in the open source drivers it would probably still be worth doing early because it would help to hide some of the other bottlenecks, but as I understand it the implementation is not considered to be easy at this point.

    As time permits we are trying to dig into how the Catalyst driver state change logic is coded and see if there are ideas which can be applied to the open drivers. The open source driver code seems pretty efficient though, which is why there is some head-scratching going on.

    There are other areas such as the shader compiler where everyone understands that the code could be made more efficient (with a lot of work), but we should be able to get higher performance than we are seeing today even with the current shader compiler.

    I haven't gone through the current code in detail, but AFAIK there is still some gains to be had from work that is already underway. Things like tiling, page flipping and HyperZ are being worked on as time permits and I don't think they were all reflected in the current benchmark numbers. As an example, I think the open drivers currently use tiling for the colour buffers (ie the render target) but not for textures.

    The unhappy thing about performance improvement is that you don't get big performance gains from one place -- you get gains in the 1-5% range from each of a number of areas, and each of those gains requires a lot of work and makes the code more complex to maintain and troubleshoot in the future.

Posting Permissions

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