Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Using The New Radeon Gallium3D 2D Color Tiling

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,419

    Default Using The New Radeon Gallium3D 2D Color Tiling

    Phoronix: Using The New Radeon Gallium3D 2D Color Tiling

    Patches finally arrived last week for 2D color tiling in the Radeon R600 Gallium3D driver. The patches were then re-based this past weekend and benchmarked by Phoronix. Will the 2D color tiling patches, which affect the Linux kernel, Mesa, libdrm, and xf86-video-ati DDX make the more recent Radeon graphics cards more competitive under open-source to the Catalyst driver?

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=16942

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    52

    Default Thank you :)

    Thank you Michael for these benchmarks Once the bugs are fixed, I hope that there will be a good (~20-30%) performance improvement, but now all we can do is to test the patches to speed up the development. AMD's opensource drivers are becoming, month after month, more suitable for general purpose use.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    424

    Default

    I agree, exciting times for us in the Radeon camp! Perhaps some testing is needed? I have an ASUS RADEON HD4850 with 512MB of memory.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Way to go devs!!! And thank you Michael for the current status of the project. While it is not currently a work of art, I'm sure it will get there. I can't wait until this is more stable ~ excited to test it out! HD5770

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    San Bernardino, CA
    Posts
    234

    Default

    Agreed! This is good news. Thanks Michael for keeping us abreast on Radeon driver developments, and thanks to the dev's for the hard work!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,646

    Default

    I see absolutely no purpose in a benchmark when one driver does not render the same things as the other one does. Those numbers are just wrong and it is even wrong to publish em - it is logical that when you leave out something that it will be faster. In a test without rendering artefacts the speed was not better, so i do not get why somebody should be excited...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    San Bernardino, CA
    Posts
    234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    I see absolutely no purpose in a benchmark when one driver does not render the same things as the other one does. Those numbers are just wrong and it is even wrong to publish em - it is logical that when you leave out something that it will be faster. In a test without rendering artefacts the speed was not better, so i do not get why somebody should be excited...
    Cause if he posted an article without benchmarks, there would be people complaining about the lack of benchmark numbers. He also states quite clearly in the article that the numbers are wrong and to take them with a grain of salt.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,646

    Default

    And you really think the posters above did notice that as well?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    And you really think the posters above did notice that as well?
    Well, most of them mentioned bugs or testing things out. And one person said he hoped for a 20-30% gain after it was done, which suggests they aren't blindly accepting a 100%+ increase like you seem to think they are.

    This is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation for Michael. I think the explanation in the text was clear enough i have no problem with it. At least he didn't trumpet 100% performance gain in the article title, only to bait and switch inside with the fine print.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Madison, WI, USA
    Posts
    881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Well, most of them mentioned bugs or testing things out. And one person said he hoped for a 20-30% gain after it was done, which suggests they aren't blindly accepting a 100%+ increase like you seem to think they are.

    This is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation for Michael. I think the explanation in the text was clear enough i have no problem with it. At least he didn't trumpet 100% performance gain in the article title, only to bait and switch inside with the fine print.
    Agreed. Michael stated straight out that there were rendering issues, to view the numbers with skepticism, and also that this is the reason that he didn't run a full panel of tests.

    I would also be happy if this led to a 30+% increase when things are finished and cleaned up. If it does lead to something closer to 100%, that'd be awesome. But at this point, we don't know what the final numbers would be. We do have something that lets us guess at the upper-end of what we might expect.

Posting Permissions

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