Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: Half-Life 2 On Wine Is Faster On AMD R600g Over Catalyst

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,433

    Default Half-Life 2 On Wine Is Faster On AMD R600g Over Catalyst

    Phoronix: Half-Life 2 On Wine Is Faster On AMD R600g Over Catalyst

    Here's an interesting finding: at least when running under Wine, Half-Life 2 is faster on the open-source AMD Radeon Linux driver than when running on the proprietary Catalyst driver. There are also some other similar results where these Windows games have the advantage when running on the Gallium3D open-source driver.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17493

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    716

    Default Amd catalyst data missing.

    Graphs do not show Catalyst data at all. (PS can you add "report bug" or something to your site?)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Do you even read that crap before posting? Like the description below each pic? See the nonsense in it?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Russe, Bulgaria
    Posts
    540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dhewg View Post
    Do you even read that crap before posting? Like the description below each pic? See the nonsense in it?
    Is this to Michael, or przemoli? I see ati-glsl and ati-arb. Which one is r600g. As far as I know Catalyst and Mesa support GLSL and ARB extenstions? Thank you very much for the Doom3 64 bit port. It is awesome

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drago View Post
    Is this to Michael, or przemoli? I see ati-glsl and ati-arb. Which one is r600g. As far as I know Catalyst and Mesa support GLSL and ARB extenstions? Thank you very much for the Doom3 64 bit port. It is awesome
    Well, to Michael of course...
    Just like you mentioned it's not clear what ati-glsl and ati-arb represents. The description for 3dmark2001 implies ati-arb is catalyst, while others like hl2 claim the opposite.
    And then we have the hilarious heaven and clear_d3d benchmarks, where the graphs show almost no difference but the description mentions huge advantages.
    I'm not sure how much more you can get wrong in a benchmark article :P

    Oh, and thx

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

    Default

    800x600 as res used for all tests? Most be a joke or?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    176

    Default

    @przemoli, dhewg, Drago
    As clearly stated in the article, the Catalyst result is the one at the right end of the graphs. Glsl and arb have nothing to do with the driver. The text makes perfect sense to me...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    800x600 as res used for all tests? Most be a joke or?
    "As far as why the open-source driver is outperforming the highly optimized closed-source driver, Stefan wrote, "I don't have an explanation for this yet, especially considering that fglrx beats r600g by a factor of 5 in most of your Linux-native tests. A possible cause is that my test setup is heavily CPU limited (usually 800x600 resolution, no multisampling). This was a conscious decision when I set up the tests because Wine's main performance issues are on the CPU side, not the GPU side. However, at least r300g's main problems seem to be GPU-related (not sure about r600g).""

    Unless he means, WINE has CPU issues when using AMD drivers, I disagree. WINE had no CPU bottlenecks in all games I played (NOLF2 and stuff).
    Still, even with 800x600 this shows open driver has no resolution-associated CPU issues, which is good.
    Running 1920 parallel would be good though, even if opensource looses.

Posting Permissions

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