Reply With QuoteThank you!
Phoronix News Bot
12-Way Radeon Gallium3D GPU Comparison
Phoronix: 12-Way Radeon Gallium3D GPU Comparison
After delivering benchmark results on Monday that looked at the AMD Catalyst vs. Radeon Gallium3D driver comparison using the very latest development code for the open-source Linux graphics driver and comparing the performance on several different Radeon HD graphics cards, here's some more performance data. In this article are some benchmarks of twelve AMD graphics cards when using the in-development Linux 3.7 kernel and Mesa 9.1-devel.
http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18192
Senior Member
Thank you!
Senior Member
A better than normal article, but I still would suggest you include a bit more information about the specific cards being tested. For instance, the Radeon HD 4670 you used in your test is not the same as the Radeon HD 4670 I am using in my machine, and I doubt the Radeon HD 6450 in the article is the one I recommended to my brothers. Maybe include a mention of the brand used, such as Sapphire, Diamond, MSI, etc...
Senior Member
To be honest, the HD4000 series did a lot better than I expected.
Certainly it's time to upgrade to an HD4000 series card if you haven't already. It looks like you won't get your money's worth if you don't run Catalayst on HD5000 and up for now..
http://i52.tinypic.com/1zyeut5.gifOriginally Posted by Article
Brand really doesn't have anything to do with performance.. Sure, some brands sell factory overclocked cards that *MAY* have been binned to be more expensive because they overclock 5% better, but I really don't think these cards should be used in benchmarking since they end up being a tiny minority of cards from that model sold on the market. AMD and nVidia doesn't sell chips based on how well they overclock, that's up to the card manuf. From the card manuf,'s perspective, all the chips cost the same but some chips they can sell for more money than others, and so of course; they take advantage of that by selling factory overclocked cards.
IMO, the only decent brand of Radeon cards is XFX. If you can't put a lifetime warranty on a microchip, then you're making it wrong! But of course, I do recognize that getting the most performance for your money is important to a lot of people as well, even at the expensive of long-term reliability. Even as a gamer that spends a grand on graphics cards every few years, I still go for the lifetime warranties from XFX and EVGA. I've been buying graphics cards for 15+ years and I have *REALLY* grown to hate all the other companies because of the BS they like to pull about voiding warranties just because you changed heatsinks, used a waterblock, overclocked the card yourself, or whatever other BS reason to void your warranty, just because they can. XFX and EVGA let you do anything you like to your cards and will honor the warranty so long as you aren't negligent (ie: No water stains, no burn marks, no physically bent / cracked cards, etc.)
/brand rant.
Last edited by Sidicas; 11-27-2012 at 03:46 PM.
Phoronix
Going through OpenBenchmarking.org you can find the PCI IDs and other information. Unfortunately AFAIK there is no embedded information readable from any of the AIB vendor cards for automatically being able to determine the brand from the software side.
Michael Larabel
http://www.michaellarabel.com/
AMD Linux
Memory configuration (DDR2 vs DDR3 vs GDDR5) usually makes the biggest difference between cards using the same GPU SKU. I've seen almost a 2:1 performance difference between slowest and fastest memory configurations.
X.Org ATI Driver Developer
You should be able to get the AIB vendor from the pci subsystem ids in most cases.
Senior Member
I was more referring to differences in VRAM and memory configuration, not overclocking. Case in point:
http://ncix.ca/products/?sku=73221&v...r&promoid=1016
http://ncix.ca/products/?sku=72269&v...cture=Gigabyte
Senior Member
I'd say it's logical to put memory configurations (VRAM capacity+VRAM Clock+VRAM Bitwidth) of the cards in the labeling.. I don't think brand is necessary as it doesn't really have any relation to performance. So long as you have *ALL* of the big 3 measurements of video card memory (capacity, clock, bitwidth) you have something meaningful.. Without one of them, it really doesn't say anything.. You could have a lot of capacity without any throughput or vice-versa, so if it's going to be done, I hope it's done right..
Too many benchmarking websites (80%+) don't understand how video memory works and leave out at least one of the three and make benchmarks that are impossible to draw any real conclusions from.
IMO, it's better to not do it at all, unless it can be done right.. And to do it right, you need all 3. Only with all 3 can you really draw conclusions about whether a card is video memory bottlenecked by memory capacity or memory performance or not. Not sure if phoronix wants to get into all that video memory stuff, but if they do, I hope they do it right, that's all.
It is common for some card manufs. to compensate for low memory clocks by adding bitwidth to their cards and it always works.. It's also common for card manufs. to lower the bitwidth (reduce board manuf. costs) but then use newer memory (higher memory clock) to obtain the same performance at a lower bitwidth (cost).. So reporting just memory clock or memory bitwidth alone is meaningless, but some benchmarking websites do exactly that!
Last edited by Sidicas; 11-27-2012 at 05:47 PM.
AMD Linux
I think the issue is that there's no standard way for PTS to obtain this info.
Posting Permissions