Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Running Mesa 9.2-devel + LLVM 3.3 SVN With The R600 Back-End

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,348

    Default Running Mesa 9.2-devel + LLVM 3.3 SVN With The R600 Back-End

    Phoronix: Running Mesa 9.2-devel + LLVM 3.3 SVN With The R600 Back-End

    The last time I extensively tested the AMD Radeon Gallium3D LLVM shader compiler back-end was last April. Since then the R600 LLVM back-end has matured quite a lot with new features and was merged into upstream LLVM. In the past few days I carried out some new tests on several different graphics cards using Mesa Git master of the R600 Gallium3D open-source graphics driver.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18510

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Russe, Bulgaria
    Posts
    500

    Default

    In the next tests, include Vadim's back-end for r600g.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    17

    Default comparison against the regular backend

    Would be useful to see how LLVM compares against the conventional backend.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Compiler influence on nexuiz and Doom3 are negligible (they are not shader bound), and I suspect this extend to any ioquake3 / doom3 engine powered benchmark.
    I personnaly use Unigine Heaven 3.0 and Lightmark 2008 2.0 to measure performance of compiler.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vljn View Post
    I personnaly use Unigine Heaven 3.0 and Lightmark 2008 2.0 to measure performance of compiler.
    Same here. Lightmark is pretty reliable.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,033

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vljn View Post
    Compiler influence on nexuiz and Doom3 are negligible (they are not shader bound), and I suspect this extend to any ioquake3 / doom3 engine powered benchmark.
    I personnaly use Unigine Heaven 3.0 and Lightmark 2008 2.0 to measure performance of compiler.
    I don't know why Michael refuses to use better tests than he does.

    Add in a WINE test, a Valve Source engine test, and Unigine, and you'd get 3 distinctly different engines apart from the Id engine he relies almost exclusively on. They'd all probably be bound on very different things performance-wise.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    I don't know why Michael refuses to use better tests than he does.

    Add in a WINE test, a Valve Source engine test, and Unigine, and you'd get 3 distinctly different engines apart from the Id engine he relies almost exclusively on. They'd all probably be bound on very different things performance-wise.
    Or more demanding Trine 2 and Serious Sam 3.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kwahoo View Post
    Or more demanding Trine 2 and Serious Sam 3.
    You wouldn't be able to put that into PTS and compare it to your own hardware. S2Games and Epic have have games out for Linux, however if you can't compile them then you can't see how the entire system has evolved.

    A DX9 game would be nice, however.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Still though it would be testable by those who do actually own it.. Not everyone would be able to make comparisons, but those that have the game could. I would love to know how well some of the commercial games that are finally being made available for linux performs - regardless of whether or not I could duplicate the tests.

Posting Permissions

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