Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Intel SNA With The 2.17 DDX Driver

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,438

    Default Intel SNA With The 2.17 DDX Driver

    Phoronix: Intel SNA With The 2.17 DDX Driver

    For those that are thinking about trying out the Sandy Bridge New Acceleration (SNA) architecture option for 2D graphics acceleration by the xf86-video-intel X.Org Linux driver, here are some benchmarks from the recent xf86-video-intel 2.17 release.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=16765

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,286

    Default

    Ouch, SNA was slower in near half of the tests.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Ouch, SNA was slower in near half of the tests.
    The only (accurate) test where it was significantly slower appears to be a very strange result:

    Code:
    uxa-2.17.0: 80000 trep @   0.3535 msec (  2830.0/sec): PutImage 500x500 square
    sna-2.170:  80000 trep @   0.3514 msec (  2850.0/sec): PutImage 500x500 square
    sna-master: 80000 trep @   0.3615 msec (  2770.0/sec): PutImage 500x500 square
    In most of the these tests SNA is much faster, quite amazing if you have read some of benchmarks.

    @Michael, how long before we can contribute test suites to openbenchmarking.org?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Ouch, SNA was slower in near half of the tests.

    By a quick count I came up with 19-SNA 11-Stock.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Ouch, SNA was slower in near half of the tests.
    In some tests it was a massive improvement though, this is still in heavy development, so if we eventually see it at least match the old method in the tests it does poorly on it will be an awesome improvement as a whole. This is probably the reason they haven't enabled it by default yet.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,286

    Default

    Well, OpenArena tends to be pretty stable in testing, and it previously got a big boost from SNA but now lost. Is it an inaccurate test?

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Well, OpenArena tends to be pretty stable in testing, and it previously got a big boost from SNA but now lost. Is it an inaccurate test?
    In terms of absolute performance, OpenArena is about 3x slower than what I'd expect on that hardware, putting the mere 10% delta in perspective.

  8. #8

    Default

    @Michael, can I be really cheeky and you to include some 800x600 results for the games -- as the lowest common denominator resolution that I can reproduce, and also as more of a stress test for the ddx (since the ddx is invoked at the end of each frame, running at higher fps should help reveal ddx overheads).

Posting Permissions

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