AMD's Catalyst Evolution For The Radeon HD 7000 Series
Phoronix: AMD's Catalyst Evolution For The Radeon HD 7000 Series
It used to be -- at least when using the Windows Catalyst drivers -- that within the first few months of AMD releasing new Radeon graphics hardware that Catalyst driver optimizations would deliver measurable improvements in this short span. For the Radeon HD 7000 series, which is built upon an entirely new GCN architecture, is this still the case? Here are benchmarks of all the AMD Catalyst Linux drivers that have been released this year and then benchmarked on an AMD Radeon HD 7950 graphics card.
This is why I hate those "the drivers are not mature yet" guys. You can actually judge a card based on its initial showing: that's pretty much the performance you'll get. If there are serious bugs (like in this review), they stand out by themselves.
Where can we find fglrx 9.0.0 ?
I might be completely wrong here; but wasn't it said GCN is much easier to program for in
terms of shader compiler optimizations than previous architectures?
If so, that may explain why performance figures do not differ significantly between driver revisions.
Maybe because the tested games are faaaar from demanding for this graphics card.
Originally Posted by entropy
I would highly suggest to rethink this kind of tests. >400 fps what in hell tells us such a result? Nothing! I know there not many demanding current games out there. So at least quality enhancing features should be activated by default for such tests. I mean super sampling anti-aliasing and such stuff. The cards must be used to their capacity! In general it should be investigated if there are more demanding OpenGL benchmarks out there available for Linux. WINE is not an option because of the fast development of this project which also my encompass performance changes due to optimizations regarding WINE and not the display driver. Overall its not easy but testing an 8 years old game like Doom 3 doesn't tell us anything. At least there are very demanding graphics mods out there for Doom 3 which may be compatible with the Linux version. Then this would be an option.
Here is a link to an interesting Doom 3 Mod which enhances the graphics: http://www.moddb.com/mods/cverdzislav
That is hardly relevant. All the benchmarking would be done with a single Wine version, so any optimisations don't matter - they are either there or not there, the relative performance is the same.
Originally Posted by Nasenbaer
Theoretically this would be possible, of course. But long time comparions would still be hard, because distributions switch over to new versions. So you would have to compile it on your own. Compiling it with the same version would mean, that even ever dependency should be built with allways the same gcc version and so on. Ok u could compile a binary version and statically compile all other dependencies in that executable but would be a quite high effort.
Originally Posted by GreatEmerald
And then the performance between two companies could be affected by bugs in the D3D<->OpenGL translations which one company can handle better than the other etc.
Native benchmarks would be better in my opinion. But a benchmark like this one, were u want to see the differences between dirver revision would still be possible when u use a single WINE version. But for long termn comparions its not so good I think.
[QUOTE=Nasenbaer;273888]Maybe because the tested games are faaaar from demanding for this graphics card.
I would highly suggest to rethink this kind of tests. >400 fps what in hell tells us such a result? Nothing! /QUOTE]
Well said, lol..
Thanks for the post.
Be real, be sober.
It's probably much more true on Windows for this card. They have all those per-application optimizations built into their drivers, catalyst A.I. swapping out shaders with more optimized versions, etc. there, which aren't necessary or present for the simple OSS games Michael tests on Linux. Although they might have some of that for Unigine.
Originally Posted by bug77
Maybe Unigine Heaven would be a good test ?