I'm having trouble accessing your site for some days now. Works via a proxy though.
Uhm... where do you live? Maybe it's a problem with my load balancing implementation, can you try with http://diego.linuxsystems.it/ which doesn't have any kind of load bal? It's htpassword protected, so you should just see the login.
Also, can you resolve the name? 'host linuxsystems.it' or 'dig +short linuxsystems.it'
Thank you for reporting.
My entire network has an interconnected and centralized banning system, if your ip does something wrong in a server you will be banned from my entire network. I have disabled it now, but it may have been the problem...
Last edited by darkbasic; 07-08-2011 at 06:52 AM.
PM'd. Ten characters is a lot.
i run the same test with the same pc but i chance the card to an hd5670... also 3fps.. same result as hd4770-
Originally Posted by Qaridarium
Anyway even 13 fps is nothing! With an OpenGL 2.1 rendering and a 1024*768 resolution it should be able to do more than 100 fps with proprietary drivers, so it's ten times slower, probably even more.
Fortunately mesa does not still support OpenGL 4.1, otherwise it will be a slideshow
Do you have a link to show that? In http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...e_heaven&num=2 even the best card, 4890 with the blob, did not break 80fps at 1024x768.
Would the 3.x vs 2.1 codepath really have that much impact?
Ok. 100 fps.
- Consider the rendering is better than OpenGL 2.1.
- Consider it is 1280x1024 instead of 1024x768
- Consider it has 16x Anisotropic filtering while mesa doesn't support it
- Consider it has 4xAA while mesa doesn't support anti aliasing.
- Consider the final FPS score is lower than a screenshot because sometimes there are big fps drop.
I was wrong, mesa is 30 times slower at least.
4890 is garbage heatgun. It was an attempt to fight against gtx280/285 until evergreen showed up and it was partially successful - 5870, given optimized driver and application (the way that vliw5 engine is effíciently utilized) should outperform 4890 at least by factor 2.5
Originally Posted by curaga
But of course, opensource driver lacks features and there is no optimization, hence this results. Still, you have a card from manufacturer that pays opensource development, which is very good.
Hey, mesa is opensource! All the drawbacks you listed require huge crew of driver developers with access to hardware. Damn, 1 year ago I had to disable noveau, to use nvidia driver, because noveau and its kms simply caused kernel panic on my gf parents machine with 8300 igp.
Originally Posted by darkbasic
What AMD could do, is put many many more people behind opensource driver - and associate them the way they associate their closed source development with card sells. They refuse so far.
By the way, that phenom II of yours is big bottleneck.
Last edited by crazycheese; 07-13-2011 at 08:09 PM.
I don't think there is a 2.1 vs 3.x codepath difference. It requires at least some GL 3 features, which Mesa has implemented, so I doubt they'd go to the trouble of creating alternative paths for other stuff. Maybe someone can point to a specific extension that Mesa is still lacking - the tesselation in 4.0 and AA are the main things I know of that aren't implemented yet, and that screenshot also shows tesselation off in the proprietary driver test.
Originally Posted by curaga
Edit: I suppose they're probably using some geometry shaders as well. Forgot about that.
Last edited by smitty3268; 07-13-2011 at 10:14 PM.