Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Nouveau For A $10 NVIDIA Graphics Card?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,375

    Default Nouveau For A $10 NVIDIA Graphics Card?

    Phoronix: Nouveau For A $10 NVIDIA Graphics Card?

    In this article is a look at the state of the open-source Nouveau Gallium3D driver on low-end NVIDIA GeForce graphics hardware. In particular, a $10 USD NVIDIA retail graphics card is being tested under Ubuntu Linux on both Nouveau and the proprietary NVIDIA driver and is then compared to a wide range of other low and mid-range offerings from NVIDIA's GeForce and AMD's Radeon graphics card line-up with a plethora of OpenGL benchmarks.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=16995

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    291

    Default

    So... at what clock was the card running on mesa anyway?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Madison, WI, USA
    Posts
    862

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cb88 View Post
    So... at what clock was the card running on mesa anyway?
    It looked like dmesg was reporting the correct clock speed, or at least the same as the binary blob, unless I was reading it wrong... But I'm guessing that the Gallium driver wasn't using floating point textures or S3TC, and there are probably plenty of other optimizations/extensions that could explain the difference in performance.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,995

    Default

    I'm interested in the Unigine performance of the 6570 - how come in those it's ~10% of the 5770 when in all other tests it's 50-100%?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    67

    Default Broken ...

    So nexuiz is broken, yes ? Well, WORKSFORME, so unless you file a bug report it's NOT going to get fixed.

    As for the clock speed of the 9600 GSO, yes, you're reading it wrong:
    [ 15.202433] [drm] nouveau 0000:03:00.0: 3: core 500MHz shader 1250MHz memory 900MHz voltage 1000mV fanspeed 100%
    [ 15.202446] [drm] nouveau 0000:03:00.0: c: core 399MHz shader 810MHz memory 399MHz voltage 950mV

    c = current, 3 = maximum

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    43

    Default Wrong 9600GSO specs

    Doesn't look like anyone had mentioned this yet, so I registered so I could point it out. This card is not a 96 shader 9600GSO, it's the later 48 core variety. The stock core is 650 and memory is 900. The memory buss should be 256 bits (it's a cut down G94a/b die), but it looks like this model was further cost reduced by only populating half of the buss with higher density (currently cheaper) parts. A modern comparison for this card might be a GT520 which has same # of cores, but faster ones, though it has half yet the memory width and bandwidth (sharing the 900MHz memory clock with this part). It does have fewer ROPs and TMUs. The 9600GSO 512 has a 48:24:16 core:TMU:ROP layout while the GT520 has a 48:8:4 layout. The GT520 may have more highly featured/optimized TMUs and ROPs, though--plus other improvements made in the (almost) three years between their releases.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    I'm interested in the Unigine performance of the 6570 - how come in those it's ~10% of the 5770 when in all other tests it's 50-100%?
    Me too. Does anybody know why?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    65

    Default

    which online retailer...? I couldn't find anybody offering it for less than about $50.. Even if it isn't terribly powerful, it is an interesting deal

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    I'm interested in the Unigine performance of the 6570 - how come in those it's ~10% of the 5770 when in all other tests it's 50-100%?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nedanfor View Post
    Me too. Does anybody know why?

    My guess would be because the HD6570 = Turks PRO is a Northern Islands based core while the HD5770 = Juniper XT is an Evergreen based core, Evergreen has had more time to cook then N. Islands.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    154

    Default Graph issues

    I started reading this article at work. The graphs on pages 6-10 look awful in Internet Explorer 8 on Windows XP Professional. The names of the cards run into each other and they also obliterate the beginning of the standard error (SE) labels. It looked so awful that I gave up. I then tried to read this article on my mobile phone during the bus trip home, but the same poor display of the graphs occurs on Opera Mobile 10.00 on Windows Mobile 6.1 Professional. I gave up again. When I got home I tried again with Firefox 9.0.1 on Ubuntu 10.04 and the graphs looked much better. I then tried using Firefox's zoom in feature and the graphs still looked just as good.

    Can something be done about this in the future?

Posting Permissions

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