Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 87

Thread: AMD Catalyst: Ubuntu 12.10 vs. Windows 7

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,429

    Default AMD Catalyst: Ubuntu 12.10 vs. Windows 7

    Phoronix: AMD Catalyst: Ubuntu 12.10 vs. Windows 7

    For those wondering about the performance of Ubuntu Linux 12.10 versus Microsoft Windows 7 when using the same system and the Catalyst graphics driver, here are new Phoronix benchmarks of an AMD Radeon HD 6870 graphics card when running a variety of OpenGL workloads from Ubuntu 12.10, Kubuntu 12.10 (the KDE desktop version of Ubuntu 12.10 to avoid the Unity desktop overhead), and Microsoft Windows 7 Professional x64.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18030

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    296

    Default

    Catalyst junk.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,399

    Default

    Kubuntu doing worse than Ubuntu? Huh. That's kind of surprising. I wonder how it would be if compositing was disabled for all three systems.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Catalyst needs to die? Really? Why don't you look at that:



    That's Unigine Sanctuary @ r600g.

    Now look at that:



    That's Unigine Heaven @ r600g.

    But wait, there's more!



    That's unity @ r600g.

    I want my Catalysts back.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdx View Post
    I couldn't have said it better. Binary blobs need to die.
    Open-source video drivers are even less good, so please keep the binary blobs alive as long as they are better. (personally I really need the binary blobs for gaming/Blendering, there is nothing at the moment that could replace it.)

    with binary blobs of NVIDIA:
    what I like:
    - gaming just works
    - desktop feels smooth
    - I get a control panel for my graphics card
    - Blender works faster on Linux than on Windows
    - 3D performance seems to be equally to Windows
    - etc.

    what I don't like:
    - plymouth looks weird
    - some weird bugs

    The open-source drivers:
    what I don't like:
    - games don't "just run" (missing OGL plugins/slow)
    - desktop doesn't feel smooth
    - No GUI control panel for my graphics card
    - Blender doesn't work AT ALL with Cycles renderer (CUDA)
    - 3D performance is just lower than on Windows
    - a LOT of bugs/crashes in software

    What I like:
    - plymouth looks good

    So why would you wish the binary blobs dead when there is nothing to replace it AT THE MOMENT?
    Just using the graphics card with binary blobs makes a reasenable user experience.
    Using the same hardware with Open-source drivers (nouveau) makes a BAD user experience.

    PS> Ok, Optimus doesn't work with the binary drivers. Neither does it OOTB with the opensource drivers. That's why I don't buy hardware with optimus UNTIL it is properly supported by the binary drivers.

    PPS> Opinions are opinions, facts are facts.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sverro2 View Post
    - I get a control panel for my graphics card
    ...
    The open-source drivers:
    - No GUI control panel for my graphics card
    driconf exists. If it's too ugly/etc, it's "just" userspace code, you can code a better one

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,734

    Default

    Screenie:


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cologne, Germany
    Posts
    303

    Lightbulb Intel is the future

    These test results clearly show that Intel is the future for Linux GPU-tasks.
    It might sound a bit unreflected to state this directly, but the current performance-backlog of integrated Intel Graphics will be recovered in the future and companies like Nvidia and ATI, who still offer currently slightly faster binary-blobs, overtaken.
    Now, the reason for that is the property of Open Source- and especially Kernel-development, that companies and individuals have a hard time to maintain and nurture their "commits", when they are not directly implemented into the actual infrastructure and source code of an OSS-project.
    Just imagine the huge manpower required to make sure that the Nvidia and ATI Kernel-modules actually work with the most recent versions of the Kernel. Some of us, including myself, have already experienced how much of a pain it causes to find out, that the proprietary Nvidia-driver doesn't work with the current Kernel version installed. To be fair, these issues lessened over the last few years, and Nvidia has a great way of dealing with that.
    I am not that much of a Gentoo-enthusiast to state that binary-blobs might have a speed disadvantage in comparison to natively-compiled open source alternatives.
    Keeping at the back of your minds, that in case of binary-blobs, the companies' support is endemic for them to work with a dynamically changing project like the Linux Kernel, one might ask what would happen if this support was seized one day.
    In case of open drivers, the case is rather clear. Contrary to that, it would just be a question of time when the actual Nvidia-modules stopped working with the ongoingly changing Kernel.
    Moreover, Linux is not a system one might install for gaming. Windows is great for that, out of question.

    When it comes to choosing between Intel or ATI/Nvidia on your next hardware-purchase, you have to conclude, in which way you want to affect the future of Linux graphics. Binary-blobs work fine, they are faster, they are technically more advanced, even I am using one currently. But in the Linux-world, we also have to look at the ethical properties of this discussion: Which solution is more suitable for a "free" future we all struggle for by using GNU/Linux?

    Thanks for reading (tldr)!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    52

    Default

    There's something that I can't get in Phoronix benchmarks, wasn't Unity continuosly dropping in performances ad behind KDE by a noticeable margin? What happened here?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freedam View Post
    There's something that I can't get in Phoronix benchmarks, wasn't Unity continuosly dropping in performances ad behind KDE by a noticeable margin? What happened here?
    I believe "what happened" for three reasons.

    1) The redirect windows option was not clicked for KDE for these tests, so default settings only

    2) ATi cards are so much more powerful than the intel's that are usually shown, that the slow down by unity is not seen as easily in them.

    3) Wasn't a regression with catalyst shown in KDE recently?


    I've not verified any of this, just some ideas.

Posting Permissions

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