Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Linux 3.1 To Linux 3.8 Radeon DRM Benchmarks

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,829

    Default Linux 3.1 To Linux 3.8 Radeon DRM Benchmarks

    Phoronix: Linux 3.1 To Linux 3.8 Radeon DRM Benchmarks

    After recently carrying out legacy Radeon benchmarks comparing Mesa/Gallium3D versions from an ATI Radeon X1800XT (R520) graphics card, up today is a vintage Linux kernel DRM comparison. For seeing if modern Linux kernels are still influencing the performance of this vintage ATI Radeon graphics card, here are benchmarks comparing the modern Linux 3.1 to 3.8 releases.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18495

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sunshine State
    Posts
    307

    Default

    well that's discouraging...

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by F i L View Post
    well that's discouraging...
    not really...just kind of pointless IMHO. Isn't the x1800 using r300g which has been pretty much feature complete for a while making this test all but useless? It would have been interesting to see a 5870 or something r600g (where improvements are actually still being made)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    159

    Default

    If you still use a card this old then you do not play games where further driver improvements will help you.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris200x9 View Post
    not really...just kind of pointless IMHO. Isn't the x1800 using r300g which has been pretty much feature complete for a while making this test all but useless?
    As results next week will show, there's still OpenGL cases where Catalyst is much faster than R300g.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sunshine State
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris200x9 View Post
    not really...just kind of pointless IMHO. Isn't the x1800 using r300g which has been pretty much feature complete for a while making this test all but useless? It would have been interesting to see a 5870 or something r600g (where improvements are actually still being made)
    Oh whoops, i read it wrong and thought he was using a newer card than that.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    As results next week will show, there's still OpenGL cases where Catalyst is much faster than R300g.
    You post fast FPS result in the past for the catalyst but the mouse input lag was 2seconds or higher means unplayable-

    I stop playing HON with the catalyst because the input lag if i try to drop a item was so high no one can play a advance bottle master support with that kind of shit driver.

    But you are not a gamer you don't have any clue what gamers really need.

    It just doesnít matter if your driver do 60fps or 400fps its more important do have a constant reaction time.

    thatís the problem of crossfire if you do have 4 cards your reaction lag time of mouse and key-port input is so high your 10000fps are just pointless.

    But hey you are the "Professional" who cares about the truth's anyway the FPS is higher go catalyst go! LOL!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,892

    Default

    This is one thing that I really appreciate with the open source drivers vs the closed source drivers....closed source drivers are millions of lines code due to per-generation-optimizations. I cant even begin to image what its like to debug the thing...

    open source drivers are more "general, over all optimzations" and more debuggable. The difference is... Radeon gives less total performance, but more consistent performance. (Input lag came to mind, or lack there-of, which the user above covered) Which you just don't get with Catalyst it seems.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    As results next week will show, there's still OpenGL cases where Catalyst is much faster than R300g.
    Maybe so, but i don't think anyone is working on it for r300g anymore. Didn't Marek basically say the driver was done, and he wouldn't be doing anything but adding bug fixes to it? A long time ago, like maybe even before the linux 3.1 kernel that you started these tests with?

    I guess it's fine to confirm that's happening, and at least there haven't been any regressions. But these results are expected.
    Last edited by smitty3268; 02-23-2013 at 02:11 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,109

    Default

    This just means we need frame latency benchmarks in PTS

Posting Permissions

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