Page 2 of 21 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 202

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

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazade View Post
    How come the open source drivers perform so poorly in comparison to Catalyst? I mean, obviously they are in development still and so lower performance is expected. But is there a concrete reason/missing feature which causes them to be so far behind?
    developers developers developers

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    257

    Default

    Well, talking about the results, I'm satisfied that even classic Mesa / Gallium3D OS ATI drivers can run most standard OpenGL games on Linux , (although their frame rates are almost an order of magnitude slower than Catalyst). With some time, I hope (maybe Gallium3D) Mesa drivers can run at best, about 50% the performance of 3D proprietary Catalyst. But, until then, I'll stick with Catalyst (I need some fast 3D perfomance ATM).

    And... there's also another point that wasn't tested here (and I'd liked to see there): Currently, if you use Wine, you're almost out of luck if you use any of the OSS ATI driver stacks. Some games need SM3.0 and that's only avaiable with OpenGL3 or higher... (currently, only Catalyst supports it. )

    My 2c, cheers

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    The 11.1 drivers (coming out this month) are supposed to fix the tearing issue.
    I hope they also fix the UVD1/UVD1+ H264/VC-1 problems in r600 generation cards (HD2xxx/HD3xxx) on both Windows / Linux OS's.

    Cheers

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    10

    Default

    the open source 3D drivers just don't cut it. the gap is huuuuuuuuuge.
    one may wonder what is the difference between the drivers. That's not just "poorly" optimized drivers, some things must be plain missing (and probably kept secret by ATI)

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,792

    Default

    This article is just sad The drivers for any recent card suck and it's 2011 by now.

    Maybe by 2018 we get an r600 that's somewhat decent?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    74

    Default

    again no color tiling or pageflipping enabled...
    using git but not using the most important performance improvements

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    ฿ 16LDJ6Hrd1oN3nCoFL7BypHSEYL84ca1JR
    Posts
    1,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bongmaster2 View Post
    again no color tiling or pageflipping enabled...
    using git but not using the most important performance improvements
    And only with compiz enabled...

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazade View Post
    How come the open source drivers perform so poorly in comparison to Catalyst? I mean, obviously they are in development still and so lower performance is expected. But is there a concrete reason/missing feature which causes them to be so far behind?
    Open-source drivers: <10 paid developers for all drivers (R300/R600/Nouveau/Intel/Via/...) Limited access to hardware specs (AMD, Intel) or reverse engineering (Nouveau, Via, ...) Development starts after the hardware is released. Stack designed for ease of maintainance and stability.

    Close-source drivers: large, separate, *paid* teams for each company (AMD, Intel, Nvidia, ...). AMD, for instance, employees as many software developers as it does hardware designers (Brigdman could give a better estimate, but something like 50 developers sounds right? Remember, this is for a single company only.) Full access to hardware specifications. Development starts 6-12 months before the hardware is released. Stack designed for performance.

    The amazing thing is that R300 has already surpassed the old Catalyst drivers in image quality, stability and 2d performance, with 3d performance improving daily.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisXY View Post
    And only with compiz enabled...
    It wouldn't make sense otherwise. It's 2011.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazade View Post
    How come the open source drivers perform so poorly in comparison to Catalyst? I mean, obviously they are in development still and so lower performance is expected. But is there a concrete reason/missing feature which causes them to be so far behind?
    If you look at the RadeonFeature matrix you'll see that "functionality" work was done first, while "performance" work (things like texture tiling, HyperZ along with general optimization) are just starting to happen now.

    A couple of posts here suggest that performance options already implemented (eg colour tiling, page flipping) may not have been used in the tests, not sure though.

Posting Permissions

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