Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Intel i915 Gallium3D Performance Examined

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,335

    Default 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.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18658

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    440

    Default

    Its preformance is bad.... really bad. Has code been directly taken from the classic driver or was this a clean rewrite?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,860

    Default

    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    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.

    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    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
    Last edited by GreatEmerald; 04-22-2013 at 05:48 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    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
    That's because it really is unacceptable?

    If i ever find myself with any machine which uses PowerVR graphics I can assure you Linux is not going to go on it, period. I rather slap Windows on it (I have a Microsoft subscription which I pay out of my own pocket so my licenses are free) and enjoy a better user experience.

    In fact, my personal rule with netbooks is that Linux does not belong there unless there is a very good reason to do so, mainly because of battery life and heat. I know many people claim that they experience better battery uptime with Linux as opposed to Windows, but that is not what I am seeing in my personal machines.

    For notebooks Im a-ok with Linux because they are not meant to last the entire day on a single charge of juice and I generally lug my charger around when I have to bring it out with me for the day.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SuperUserLand
    Posts
    534

    Default

    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?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    158

    Default

    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...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    521

    Default

    "...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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,988

    Default

    Hi Michael

    (don't you just love glossy screens - the first pic on the left)

Posting Permissions

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