Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 202

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

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Generally the performance looks very decent considering this is open source and coded with relatively few resources. This gives me a lot of hope for future versions. I would consider 50% performance of the proprietary driver a huge success, especially since it will just work out of the box and solve for example the tearing issue. And I guess getting to ~20% as now is probably much much closer to 50% than it looks

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crispy View Post
    This gives me a lot of hope for future versions.
    the problem is that there is no sustainable (financially) environment for foss drivers developers outside the HW companies. (its been stated numerous times here by developers that bounties/donations don't work.)

    and i don't see this changing in the future

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,763

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    the problem is that there is no sustainable (financially) environment for foss drivers developers outside the HW companies. (its been stated numerous times here by developers that bounties/donations don't work.)

    and i don't see this changing in the future
    Yeah, which is the reason I believe the Linux driver model isn't up to par with proprietary operating systems. Binary blobs on Linux need to replace big chunks of X.Org to work properly and the kernel interface sucks.

    There's also a "conspiracy theory" around this, saying that this is intended by the developers so that big Linux users pay for support from the likes of Red Hat and such.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,908

    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
    Enabling color tiling and pageflipping, and disabling compiz would at least double the open source results.

    Oh well...

    Still, the interesting thing about the results is that the driver is heavily CPU-bound, which means once these bottlenecks are found and fixed, the performance should increase rapidly.

    All r600 and r700 GPUs have basically the same performance, although some of them are 5x faster than others.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr James View Post
    Check out the radeon feature matrix - all drivers, all incomplete, all missing the vast majority of 3D related features. Missing as in "To do" - nobody is even working on it. Now that is what I call AMD support.
    No, actually, they support the vast majority of 3d related features, and are missing a minority.

    The main problem with the open drivers (other than GL3+ support) is performance.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    It wouldn't make sense otherwise. It's 2011.
    It would make sense to run a window manager which switches compositing off for full-screen apps.

    It's 2011, after all. If compiz can't cut it, use something more sane.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    the problem is that there is no sustainable (financially) environment for foss drivers developers outside the HW companies. (its been stated numerous times here by developers that bounties/donations don't work.)

    and i don't see this changing in the future
    Basic income could be a solution to this problem...

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    598

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evolution View Post
    Some games need SM3.0 and that's only avaiable with OpenGL3 or higher...
    Not true, SM3.0 is a strict subset of GLSL1.2 with ARB_shader_texture_lod, both of which can be supported by a GL1 driver.


    Based on my findings, the low performance can be attributed to these facts:

    - We don't use hardware to its full potential (e.g. HyperZ is either not implemented (r600g) or not enabled by default (r300g)). Page flipping is about to emerge in the next kernel. Tiling is not implemented in r600g to my knowledge (and according to the feature matrix). I don't think this point matters much, because the CPU is what limits performance the most.

    - There is a command stream checker in the kernel which gives away a little of speed in exchange for security. I'd personally like to see that dropped, but Linus wouldn't accept it.

    - The Mesa state tracker and Mesa core slow things down. Some state tracker optimizations are being worked on and that should make the performance a little better. The whole thing could be made faster if the classic driver interface was dropped and both the core and the state tracker were merged together and simplified. This won't happen until Intel jump over to Gallium. Intel are still doing the majority of work on Mesa, so we can't just ignore them.

    - Uploading user buffers (like vertices not being in VBOs) is embarrassingly slow. If you wonder why Lightsmark is such a huge failure with open source drivers, then this is the reason.


    Ranting about missing GL3 without mentioning WHY GL3 cannot be supported gets old. There are patent issues preventing us from implementing GL3 fully, so it's out of the question now.

    It would be very useful if we had comparisons like this article every month or more often, so that we don't live in illusions.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Merida
    Posts
    1,098

    Default

    Things havenīt changed much in the last 4 years, performance wise. Gallium3D only boosted performance a bit in certain cases. Knowing about the situation with the open drivers, I donīt really understand why all the complaints about performance. What has changed in the last 3-4 years is the amount of support from the driver. Itīs simply amazing how far it has come and this is what really should be praised above all else.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marek View Post
    - The Mesa state tracker and Mesa core slow things down. Some state tracker optimizations are being worked on and that should make the performance a little better. The whole thing could be made faster if the classic driver interface was dropped and both the core and the state tracker were merged together and simplified. This won't happen until Intel jump over to Gallium. Intel are still doing the majority of work on Mesa, so we can't just ignore them.

    marek since you are a dev and probably know more on the subject do you see Intel dropping classic and going Gallium and if when whats the timeframe.

    i remember reading that they were not keen on making the jump

Posting Permissions

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