Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: AMD Radeon Catalyst: Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 12.04 LTS

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    446

    Default

    To anyone proposing different configurations/distros.

    Go ahead grab pts and run the benchmarks. It is stupid simple. Show that your configuration makes a significant difference(not just a few percent) and I am sure it will be considered.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sunshine State
    Posts
    303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by soupbowl View Post
    @F i L

    Go to http://openbenchmarking.org/ and do that yourself. Its already been explained 100 times why he does it the way he does it.
    No matter what distribution he used or settings there would be more like you posting here crying he did not use a certain flag here
    or tweak a setting there. Its about default installs, and arch's default is the prompt.
    I don't appreciate your ad hominem implication. I'm not "crying" by suggesting a logic reason for someone who spends there time running a website, which boast Linux benchmarking as key attraction, to actually benchmark with more comparable systems. I personally don't have the time or resources to benchmark a multitude of machines, so your cheeky suggestion to "do it myself" is out of the question, this is the reason I browse Phoronix.com in the first place.

    And if it's been explained 100 times already with the arguments you just gave, then I find those reasons to be in error. No one expects the absolute best-possible combination of settings in the benchmarks, but that's no excuse for using a provably slower default system when there are other common Linux systems with much better "default" performance (Ubuntu Studio, Linux Mint, Elementry, Pear OS, Arch, ect...). Using Arch is a logical choice because it's designed to be lightweight, fast, up-to-date, and easily customizable.

    Remember, I never said that benchmarking a default Ubuntu system was a bad idea, only that it should be second to benchmarking a better Linux setup.

    -----

    On a completely unrelated note (and not directed at soupbowl): I've ran a OpenGL vs DirectX comparison between Linux and Windows 7/8 recently on two dual-booted systems. The nVidia Card (280GT I think) got significantly better performance with GL on Arch Linux (100+ fps more) vs DX on Win8; however the AMD Radeon HD 4870 O.C. got significantly (as in ~half) the performance on Ubuntu 12.04 that it did on Win7. This was my own code, which largely tests pixel shader ops and render targets (barely any polygons), so take all that with a grain of salt.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sunshine State
    Posts
    303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by soupbowl View Post
    @F i L

    Go to http://openbenchmarking.org/ and do that yourself. Its already been explained 100 times why he does it the way he does it.
    No matter what distribution he used or settings there would be more like you posting here crying he did not use a certain flag here
    or tweak a setting there. Its about default installs, and arch's default is the prompt.
    I don't appreciate your ad hominem implication. I'm not "crying" by suggesting a logic reason for someone who spends there time running a website, which boast Linux benchmarking as key attraction, to actually benchmark with more comparable systems. I personally don't have the time or resources to benchmark a multitude of machines, so your cheeky suggestion to "do it myself" is out of the question, this is the reason I browse Phoronix.com in the first place.

    And if it's been explained 100 times already with the arguments you just gave, then I find those reasons to be in error. No one expects the absolute best-possible combination of settings in the benchmarks, but that's no excuse for using a provably slower default system when there are other common Linux systems with much better "default" performance (Ubuntu Studio, Linux Mint, Elementry, Pear OS, Arch, ect...). Using Arch is a logical choice because it's designed to be lightweight, fast, up-to-date, and easily customizable.

    Remember, I never said that benchmarking a default Ubuntu system was a bad idea, only that it should be second to benchmarking a better Linux setup.

    -----

    On a completely unrelated note (and not directed at soupbowl): I've ran a OpenGL vs DirectX comparison between Linux and Windows 7/8 recently on two dual-booted systems. The nVidia Card (280GT I think) got significantly better performance with GL on Arch Linux (100+ fps more) vs DX on Win8; however the AMD Radeon HD 4870 O.C. got significantly (as in ~half) the performance on Ubuntu 12.04 that it did on Win7. This was my own code, which largely tests pixel shader ops and render targets (barely any polygons), so take all that with a grain of salt.

    [EDIT: forums is fucking up, third tries a charm]

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    944

    Default

    What I'd like to see is more graphics cards. Can we expect the same performance differences with lower specced cards? Oh, and BTW it seems that nvidia has more tests that favor Ubuntu. I'd like to see Qaridarium unravel that one

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mitcoes View Post
    Ubuntu Studio is also LTE

    It has a low latency kernel

    Kernel that can be installed for testing

    MS WOS has a 300 Hz kernel, Ubuntu a 100 Hz one, and Ubuntu Studio a 1000 Hz
    Ubuntu has 250Hz kernel. Suspend composition should give better results under Ubuntu, but it's disabled for now.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Ubuntu has 250Hz kernel. Suspend composition should give better results under Ubuntu, but it's disabled for now.
    Moreover, Ubuntu has CONFIG_NO_HZ and CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS switched on:
    Code:
    $ cat /boot/config-$(uname -r) | grep -E "HZ|TIMERS"
    CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ=y
    CONFIG_NO_HZ=y
    CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS=y
    # CONFIG_HZ_100 is not set
    CONFIG_HZ_250=y
    # CONFIG_HZ_300 is not set
    # CONFIG_HZ_1000 is not set
    CONFIG_HZ=250
    CONFIG_MACHZ_WDT=m
    Which means it can use much higher resolution timers. Have a look here:
    http://www.advenage.com/topics/linux...-frequency.php

    All in all, I think Ubuntu default settings make for a good enough gaming platform (there's room for improvement though).

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Is there any step by step guide for AMD CATALYST installation for Precise Pangolin, I used to have no problems on Lucid but now in Precise I cant find the way to install it correctly

  8. #18

    Default

    To be honest, I'm pleasantly surprised how much on par the Windows and Linux drivers versions are. I wouldn't have expected that, and removes one reason companies might trot out for not porting games to Linux.

    To put in my two cents regarding the benchmarks on stock vs tweaked configurations, I much prefer seeing stock results. Sure, I could tweak my system six ways to Sunday, but, frankly, I really can't be bothered. I suspect most people fall into that category too, or the the category where they have no clue *how* to tweak their system. I suspect the number of people who bother optimizing their system is a very small percentage, so a stock comparison gives the most information about how drivers will perform for most people.

    That said, out of academic interest, I would always be curious to see just how much performance could be obtained by different kernel configs, window managers, XOrg config file tweaks...

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devius View Post
    Oh, and BTW it seems that nvidia has more tests that favor Ubuntu. I'd like to see Qaridarium unravel that one
    hi

    right now I'm unhappy with AMD.

    I'm sure the next intel "APU" generation will rape AMD completely on the opensource side.
    then you need to buy a 80+ stand alone PCIe graphic card to get similar"opensource" benchmark results
    and on the CPU side most of the time you can save 20euro if you buy a amd cpu but what does this matters if you need to buy a 80 graphic card because the amd APUs perform like shit with the opensource driver?
    right now you get a faster cpu on intel side and a faster gpu on amd side but only if you use a closed source driver
    with opensource drivers you get a faster cpu on intel side and a faster gpu on intel side and a lower price ..LOL!

    and nvidia? i don't care nvidia doesn't have a x86-APU at all and the time for big PCIe graphic-cards are over for LINUX users because all games who need more "speed" don't work on "linux"

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,991

    Default

    We need an AMD APU test with the high performance profile before we can conclude that.

Posting Permissions

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