Intel i915 Gallium3D Performance Examined
Phoronix: Intel i915 Gallium3D Performance Examined
Last week after a modern Intel Gallium3D driver was proposed for mainline Mesa, a side discussion ended up being ignited about making the i915 Gallium3D driver the default for older generations of Intel graphics hardware. To see where the i915 Gallium3D driver is at compared to the i915 Classic Mesa DRI driver, here are some new benchmarks from aging Intel i945 hardware.
Its preformance is bad.... really bad. Has code been directly taken from the classic driver or was this a clean rewrite?
To be fair, the classic driver has probably had the crap optimized out of it. The performance of the new gallium driver is very respectable considering the limited amount of work that has gone into it and I'm sure if it is made the default that equal performance will be pulled out of it as the classic driver in time.
Of course, that would actually require that i915g driver makes it as the default driver for older Intel hardware, otherwise there is really little incentive to keep working on it. Userbase can be a very powerful motivational tool.
Originally Posted by Ericg
At least it appears to be usable for running an OpenGL-accelerated, composited desktop which all that flashy effects like wobbly windows fluidly without slowdown or lag. I consider that to be the minimum level of performance acceptable for any driver.
By that definition, gma500_gfx (Poulsbo) is unacceptable... which I suppose is a fair point. Although it's quite usable if you choose not to use composited desktops
Originally Posted by Sonadow
Last edited by GreatEmerald; 04-22-2013 at 06:48 PM.
this is so fucking stupid....
why does this guy keep running the exact same tests on some gay old quake3 games that no one plays?
you do realize that just running gtkperf would be a million times better for this set and give us much more info right?
Where's the "examined" part of the article?
All I see is benchmarks with similars results to what's already been shown before. I was hoping for an explanation on why performance isn't on par...
"...is changing the default open-source Intel Linux graphics driver for old i915 through i945 IGPs (common to the first-generation Intel Atom netbooks)".
Isn't it common to all atom netbooks except those with PowerVR? e.g. even those with integrated igp on-package, it's still i945 IGP, right?
It's a pity that performance is so bad and even worse with the new driver. In the end, these benchmarks don't really show if normal desktop performance is better or worse, and that is the most important thing for these igps.
(don't you just love glossy screens - the first pic on the left)