Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 69

Thread: Performance Work Coming Up For Mesa 7.11

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,554

    Default Performance Work Coming Up For Mesa 7.11

    Phoronix: Performance Work Coming Up For Mesa 7.11

    While Mesa 7.10 was just released, there's already been some work beginning to land in the mainline Mesa code-base for the ATI Radeon Gallium3D drivers to improve the performance...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODk5OQ

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Merida
    Posts
    1,099

    Default

    r300g seems rather stable in most situations, so any performance gains are welcomed.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    365

    Default

    Yeah, I wonder how well r300g/c compare to Catalyst 9.3. I know we've had that r600g comparision recently, but the r300 drivers seem much more mature and prolly have seen more optimization as well.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoBrain View Post
    Yeah, I wonder how well r300g/c compare to Catalyst 9.3. I know we've had that r600g comparision recently, but the r300 drivers seem much more mature and prolly have seen more optimization as well.
    The last comparison i saw had it between 50-60%. With the recent optimizations Marek has committed I'd guess we might be over 60% now. It would be an interesting test for Michael to run again. Especially if he could do it on a couple machines - one with a really fast CPU and another with something much slower, to see if the driver is CPU limited.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    429

    Default Don't forget that r300g covers a very broad hardware spectrum

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    The last comparison i saw had it between 50-60%.
    r300g covers old R300 chips all the way up to more recent R535+. And it must be difficult to get meaningful comparisons anyway, when Catalyst 9.3 is only compatible with horribly outdated X servers.

    Personally, I'm much more impressed with the functionality and stability of r300g than I ever was with the Catalyst drivers, even if r300g's 3D performance has not yet been optimised.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisr View Post
    r300g covers old R300 chips all the way up to more recent R535+. And it must be difficult to get meaningful comparisons anyway, when Catalyst 9.3 is only compatible with horribly outdated X servers.
    I think a comparison would still be useful. Even if other components have helped to speed-up r300g we'd still be able to confirm that there is room for improvement.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    The last comparison i saw had it between 50-60%. With the recent optimizations Marek has committed I'd guess we might be over 60% now.
    The newer catalyst driver is _way_ faster then Gallium, like here:
    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...ver_q111&num=4
    or even worse, like here:
    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...ver_q111&num=8

    Is it the whole code or just a few parts in Gallium that make it lag behind that much? Is it like "all we need is rewrite GLSL" to match Catalyst or is it like "we need to rewrite pretty much anything"? Just wondering..

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,341

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cl333r View Post
    Is it the whole code or just a few parts in Gallium that make it lag behind that much? Is it like "all we need is rewrite GLSL" to match Catalyst or is it like "we need to rewrite pretty much anything"? Just wondering..
    If we knew exactly what needed to be fixed we'd do it. It comes down to lots of profiling. The closed driver is build on a stack specifically tuned to AMD hardware that was honed over the last 10-15 years by 10-20x the developers of the open source driver. Mesa is aimed at making it easy to support various graphics APIs on a wide range of hardware.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by agd5f View Post
    If we knew exactly what needed to be fixed we'd do it. It comes down to lots of profiling. The closed driver is build on a stack specifically tuned to AMD hardware that was honed over the last 10-15 years by 10-20x the developers of the open source driver. Mesa is aimed at making it easy to support various graphics APIs on a wide range of hardware.
    Tell that to the "blobs must die, only open source drivers should be allowed in Linux" bozos.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by agd5f View Post
    If we knew exactly what needed to be fixed we'd do it. It comes down to lots of profiling. [..]
    Sounds like an interesting task. What exactly has to be profiled, how is it done and is any special ability required to do that despite of a lot of patience? :-)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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