AMD Radeon GPUs Run Great With Linux 3.11 Kernel, Mesa 9.3-devel
Phoronix: AMD Radeon GPUs Run Great With Linux 3.11 Kernel, Mesa 9.3-devel
While the Linux 3.11 kernel hasn't even been officially released yet, on Phoronix we have already published a number of Radeon DPM benchmarks, the new dynamic power management code coming to the open-source driver. Early Phoronix tests of Radeon DPM have yielded performance improvements and great improvements for power/thermal use. In this article are new Linux 3.11 + Mesa Git benchmarks from a variety of AMD/ATI Radeon graphics cards.
Something wrong with 6950 results.
And with the HD6570. It should be quite a lot faster than the HD6450, having about 3 times more processing power.
Firmware issue maybe? Or DPM issues?
Much better choice of colors for the graphs this time around, nice.
Any reason for the Radeon HD 8670D not appearing in the perf/watt charts?
Last edited by PsynoKhi0; 08-13-2013 at 05:52 AM.
Pulseaudio is big problem for me too. All running smooth on ALSA, but i have issues in 3D applications with Pulseaudio.
PS: Intel Core i7 920, NVidia GTX275, 6GB RAM, SSD...
Why the missing Unvanquished 2560 results?
Also, the colors were great.
Mesa is getting better
I myself can comfortably play games just on Mesa alone using Fedora 19 and latest 3.11-rc5 kernel. I got the 6870 and it feels so good not having to deal with installing any drivers Radeon drivers have the ability to be even better than proprietary blobs it seems, with enough love of course Anyway, happy to see these benchmarks. BTW, dpm works really well though it could be a bit more dynamic and clockdown faster.
I was gonna ask about the 8670D (Richland, right?). It looks first in the first few tests and then it doesn't show anymore, I wonder if it failed to run.
Originally Posted by PsynoKhi0
I would rather see a representative card per chipset, say 3 or 4 for GPUs, and compare Catalyst vs FLOSS. Anyways, things are looking good with 3.11 for AMD open source. For Intel Haswell, 3.10 carries most of the improvements as far as I can tell.
soso it really hurts, I sit here with the cutting edge *cough* archlinux with mesa 9.1 while 9.3 tests are out.
pfff I dont really know who I have to blame here more, is it mesas fault for having 20 unstable-branches (normaly oyu have 1 and the rest are feature branches) never heard of release early release often, or unflexibility of archlinux folks.
I mean fedora hat mesa 9.2 from the beginning, my dad using it since then without problems, so I think a bit both but mostly arch linux. If you want a recent X stack arch is not the way to go.
Yes arch has other advantages great wiki and some packages fedora dont have.
So because it seems that arch linux devs are not asking themselves how stable stuff is they take what gets signed stable by upstream in blind believe that before that its garbage and with that tag it must be good enough, so when do we see we finaly 9.2 tagged as stable by the mighty gods so I can hope to see finaly after 2-3 months stable mesa 9.2 (thats the reallity despite different tagging) here in arch mesa 9.2.
BTW for what again is testing tree in arch? And yes I know there is AUR, but please try to build any of that mesa builds without rewriting dependencies and pray to god and compile for hours on my zacate machine its not happening, it is about factor 10 easier to compile a own kernel and get it running then replacing the X stack with its 10 billion dependencies.
They have exactly one "unstable" branch. The other ones are feature or stable branches.
Originally Posted by blackiwid
The important ones right now:
- master (9.3-dev): unstable.
- 9.2: latest stable that's currently in the rc phase. It's going to be released on Aug 22.
- 9.1. latest released stable
So your system has the latest released stable mesa installed.