Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38

Thread: GCC 4.5 vs. 4.6 On AMD's FX-4100 Bulldozer

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaemonFC View Post
    And every time he benchmarks VDrift, he claims that Mesa is faster because it doesn't handle shaders correctly, and is then corrected by Marek Olsak who obviously knows what Mesa does and doesn't do who tells him that it is Vdrift that is to blame for shaders that shouldn't even compile on standards-compliant OpenGL drivers in the first place.
    He should be running the latest VDrift (2011-09) instead of the one from 2010-06, perhaps that is a lot better. I've taken the old GLSLValidator from 3DLabs and updated it to compile on a "modern" Linux distribution with wxWidgets 2.8. I was planning on running their shaders through that since it only supports up to GLSL1.2. I tested some of their shaders and some of those fragment shaders failed.
    The code/program can be found at https://github.com/AzP/GLSL-Validate/

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Azpegath View Post
    He should be running the latest VDrift (2011-09) instead of the one from 2010-06, perhaps that is a lot better. I've taken the old GLSLValidator from 3DLabs and updated it to compile on a "modern" Linux distribution with wxWidgets 2.8. I was planning on running their shaders through that since it only supports up to GLSL1.2. I tested some of their shaders and some of those fragment shaders failed.
    The code/program can be found at https://github.com/AzP/GLSL-Validate/
    I only had a few minutes before to look into VDrift 2011 but the source package now for it is only 1MB (it should be several hundred MB), and haven't had the time to look into see what changed or how the VDrift build system was altered.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    ฿ 16LDJ6Hrd1oN3nCoFL7BypHSEYL84ca1JR
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    I only had a few minutes before to look into VDrift 2011 but the source package now for it is only 1MB (it should be several hundred MB), and haven't had the time to look into see what changed or how the VDrift build system was altered.
    You can have a look at the archlinux PKGBUILDS from the repositories. They have version 2011.09.01. Should be quite easy to read and guess what it does. (the source data gets extracted to $srcdir and the files in $pkgdir will end up in the package).
    game binary: http://projects.archlinux.org/svntog...86_64/PKGBUILD
    game data: http://projects.archlinux.org/svntog...y-any/PKGBUILD
    Last edited by ChrisXY; 10-21-2011 at 06:12 AM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    I only had a few minutes before to look into VDrift 2011 but the source package now for it is only 1MB (it should be several hundred MB), and haven't had the time to look into see what changed or how the VDrift build system was altered.
    Yes they split the packages into src and data, and haven't released a data package for it. Sadly they just seem to want to distribute data via svn since their previous version. I've been trying to get them to release a data tar file matching the source release so we can get an updated package in Gentoo, but the devs doesn't reply on IRC. Their channel is just quiet. I've only tried for 2 whole days, but you'd think that somebody would reply.

    There's a bug on the Gentoo bugzilla about it describing the issue furter (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351409#c7)

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Azpegath View Post
    Yes they split the packages into src and data, and haven't released a data package for it. Sadly they just seem to want to distribute data via svn since their previous version. I've been trying to get them to release a data tar file matching the source release so we can get an updated package in Gentoo, but the devs doesn't reply on IRC. Their channel is just quiet. I've only tried for 2 whole days, but you'd think that somebody would reply.

    There's a bug on the Gentoo bugzilla about it describing the issue furter (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351409#c7)
    I'll check with the main developer when I have the time. Last I knew I even had SVN commit access to VDrift from when I was doing the benchmark mode for it, so hopefully he will listen.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    399

    Default

    Cool, perhaps he can comment on the bug in bugzilla if he gets time. It's sad to have a release that's one and a half years old in portage when they've done two of them since.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    519

    Default

    New entry in the openbenchmarking database, with kernel 3.1, GCC 4.5: normalized result compared to the article's data
    Only C-Ray is tested, though apparently a 27% boost. Is Bulldozer the only CPU getting such improvement?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PsynoKhi0 View Post
    New entry in the openbenchmarking database, with kernel 3.1, GCC 4.5: normalized result compared to the article's data
    Only C-Ray is tested, though apparently a 27% boost. Is Bulldozer the only CPU getting such improvement?
    What compiler and compiler options were used? It really does matter!

    From what I've seen until now, only Bulldozer-based CPUs get a hefty performance boost with new kernels and compilers which makes perfectly sense. It's an entirely new architecture and quite a big step from the previous one as well everything else that's been around until now.

    Most notable peculiarities of the Bulldozer module-design are the shared early pipeline stages, L1 instruction and L2 caches. Without OS kernels and compilers take into account and optimizing for this new design they will be inherently crippling the module and turning the per-module performance into closer to single rather than 1.5-2 core performance.

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pszilard View Post
    What compiler and compiler options were used? It really does matter!

    From what I've seen until now, only Bulldozer-based CPUs get a hefty performance boost with new kernels and compilers which makes perfectly sense. It's an entirely new architecture and quite a big step from the previous one as well everything else that's been around until now.

    Most notable peculiarities of the Bulldozer module-design are the shared early pipeline stages, L1 instruction and L2 caches. Without OS kernels and compilers take into account and optimizing for this new design they will be inherently crippling the module and turning the per-module performance into closer to single rather than 1.5-2 core performance.
    Column On Left > Result File Information (at bottom of column) > Click > Click System Information > cc output. e.g. http://openbenchmarking.org/system/1...GCC%204.5.2/cc among other data from that area

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Column On Left > Result File Information (at bottom of column) > Click > Click System Information > cc output. e.g. http://openbenchmarking.org/system/1...GCC%204.5.2/cc among other data from that area
    Thanks, still haven't taken the time to figure out the OpenBenchmarking.com interface, it might be only me, but I find it a little confusing...

    Btw, the CC info lines (most notably the "Configured with" line) are not wrapped which makes it unreadable unless copy-pasted out...

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
  •