Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Radeon R300g Morphological Anti-Aliasing Performance

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,465

    Default Radeon R300g Morphological Anti-Aliasing Performance

    Phoronix: Radeon R300g Morphological Anti-Aliasing Performance

    Last week benchmarks were delivered of the AMD Radeon R300g with MSAA, after the much-used feature was finally implemented in a proper and working state for this open-source graphics driver. Coming out today are new Morphological Anti-Aliasing (MLAA) benchmarks from this Gallium3D driver to compare to the Multi-Sample Anti-Aliasing results.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18373

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    369

    Default

    I find it interesting that, with the exception of the last test, MLAA is consistently (albeit, only slightly) faster at 4x than at 2x--and in the last test, faster at 8x than 2x.

    The numbers are very low, so it's not saying much, but I'd be interested in an explanation if there was one.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    601

    Default

    The question is why the framerate sucks so much. It's very unlikely for 2x MSAA to be more than 2x slower, but the article shows 11x lower framerate in openarena. It doesn't add up. Has anybody else been seeing this on his/her machine?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,279

    Default

    As noted in the last MSAA review:
    http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...746#post305746
    even the non-MSAA scores are really low compared to the previous phoronix r300 review.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    330

    Default

    For me, there is zero point to even test these antialiasing technics when one don't have good performance without, something very beyond 60 fps and no lower . So Michael when you get 120 fps and up in some games then please do it, make antialiasing benchmarks only with something but on top of that "wasted" render performance, only with apps where you have that wasted performance otherwise please don't - there is no point .

    Whole point in antialiasing is to make render more beautiful on eyes .

    I think, when things are proper implemented and i have 120 fps already, i will have 60 fps with MSAA 2X? That would be coolish
    Last edited by dungeon; 01-15-2013 at 06:41 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dungeon View Post
    I think, when things are proper implemented and i have 120 fps already, i will have 60 fps with MSAA 2X? That would be coolish
    The same card was running most of these tests at 100+ fps almost two years ago (see link below) and should be even faster now. That's why we're all surprised that this round of tests is showing much lower numbers even with MSAA turned off. It's possible that the higher levels of GL support are causing the app to take code paths which give higher quality but lower performance, however other users are also seeing higher numbers than we're seeing here.

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag..._compare&num=1

    EDIT -- of course it's always possible that the tests from two years ago were showing artificially *high* numbers
    Last edited by bridgman; 01-15-2013 at 07:30 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    330

    Default

    He, he, it is time for Michael to do some bisecting and not benchamarking . Then do benchmarks with or without beer .

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,285

    Default

    If any other folks are running an X1800 or X1900 card it would also be interesting to see what kinds of numbers they are seeing.

    I had an X1950 at home but replaced it with an HD 5670 when the guys got Evergreen support working... now I can't seem to find the X1950 ;(

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    601

    Default

    My OpenArena 0.8.8 benchmark results!

    I tested 2 resolutions. 1440x900 uses unoptimized MSAA because of a limitation in my hardware (see here for detailed information - the patch was committed today). 1280x720 is fully optimized, so the hardware runs at full speed.

    Code:
      Resolution: 1440x900
    
    No AA:     62 fps
    
    2x MSAA:   49 fps
    4x MSAA:   35 fps
    6x MSAA:   27 fps
    
    2x MLAA:   38 fps
    4x MLAA:   38 fps
    6x MLAA:   37 fps
    It's in line with what I would expect. MLAA seems to have a fixed cost, while MSAA varies depending on the MSAA mode.

    Code:
      Resolution: 1280x720
    
    No AA:     77 fps
    
    2x MSAA:   65 fps
    4x MSAA:   57 fps
    6x MSAA:   56 fps
    
    2x MLAA:   49 fps
    4x MLAA:   49 fps
    8x MLAA:   47 fps
    The cost of MSAA is much lower at this resolution thanks to the MSAA optimizations being enabled by the driver, and it even outperfomed MLAA. 6x MSAA is almost as fast as 4x MSAA, which makes sense if I consider how the optimizations work. Of course, it always depends on the app.

    System info: ATI Mobility Radeon X1700, Ubuntu 12.10, Linux kernel 3.8.0-rc3, Mesa git, Xfce4, no compositing.
    Last edited by marek; 01-15-2013 at 08:34 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    330

    Default

    Your numbers are good, now if Michael could run OpenArena 0.8.8 on those and other resolutions.

    Don't know where is the gap between your and Michael setup, you both run Ubuntu... Maybe Unity do something wrong again.

Posting Permissions

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