Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 107 of 107

Thread: Image Quality Comparison: Radeon Gallium3D vs. Catalyst

  1. #101
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Regardless of whether or not mental health issues are an interesting topic of discussion, they're not relevant to this thread.

    So, how 'bout those rendering differences, eh?

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mangobrain View Post
    Regardless of whether or not mental health issues are an interesting topic of discussion, they're not relevant to this thread.

    So, how 'bout those rendering differences, eh?
    If anybody is still reading this thread, would be great to repeat the test with nouveau/nVidia blobs/intel/intel driver on Windows/llvmpipe to compare the Enemy screenshots. I think it's difficult to establish which one is wrong between Catalyst and r300g/r600g without other data.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    you are fullly aware about the whole hoo-ha regarding switchable graphics solutions in notebooks (NVIDIA has their Optimus, and AMD has their PowerXpress). Will we be seeing any improvements for PowerXpress support in the proprietary driver stack, and will AMD be cooperating with the Bumblebee developers to support this, or will the support be built into the open Radeon driver?
    Supporting hybrid graphics well is mostly limited by a lack of infrastructure in the graphics stack to properly support decoupled rendering and display. The driver side is pretty trivial. The infrastructure to support it without ugly hacks is starting to fall into place:
    1. The initial v1 dma_buf patches landed in 3.3. This allows sharing buffers between drivers
    2. Dave's "Prime" work builds on the dma_buf patches to allow buffer sharing between KMS drivers for things like hybrid graphics on laptops
    3. Reworking the X server to handle decoupled rendering and display

    Until all of that falls into place, it will always be a hack. There isn't really any magic involved. One GPU renders, the other GPU composites the result to the screen. Anyone can help out.
    Last edited by agd5f; 02-17-2012 at 11:19 AM.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    353

    Default

    AMD got it somehow working with their 12.1 blob by doing all hybrid stuff in userspace - the X server still thinks one of the two cards does everything. It's still a hack, but it seems a good one (however, nowhere as good as hybrid graphics should be).

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,718

    Default

    jpeg and small pictures. There is no need to comment on this article. Every difference can be explained by this two things alone.

    Next time lossless and huge, please.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    52

    Exclamation

    Looks like Catalyst rendering is the wrong one: nVidia blobs vs. Catalyst. As you can see, it's nVidia blobs + r300g/r600g vs Catalyst.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Catalyst is indeed rendering differently. But like I said before it's also possible that the bloom was originally written on Catalyst, without noticing that it relied on wrong driver behaviour.

    In that case a combination of a Nexuiz bug and a Catalyst bug causes it to be rendered correctly on Catalyst only.

Posting Permissions

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