Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48

Thread: AMD Radeon HD 6000 Series Open-Source Driver Becomes More Competitive

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krasnoglaz View Post
    I don't understand why test target for drivers are decade old shaderless games or opensource relatively light games like Xonotic. Why not Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2?
    No. Just no. Xonotic on Ultra is actually as demanding as TF2, if not more. You could even play with the Ultimate setting and Antialiasing if you wanted.
    Last edited by Calinou; 08-20-2013 at 03:17 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Is Radeon then going to become a mess of if's and IFDEF's, Bridgman? All that hand-tuning to get every little ounce of performance out of every card or are the devs thinking that its best to keep the code as clean as possible and just go for the 'middle of the road, good for most but not perfect for all' approach?
    I think it's more likely that the hand-tweaking optimizations won't happen and the open source driver will stay clean.

    That's what we've been assuming anyways...

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,102

    Default

    Nobody else noticed how 6950 beat catalyst in Xonotic Ultra? 17% faster. And that's without SB.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Why is HD6450 performance so much different (terrible) than the others? I happen to have a laptop with that card (hybrid setup) but in all cases, Intel card was WAY faster. It's a different story on windows though.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    I think it's more likely that the hand-tweaking optimizations won't happen and the open source driver will stay clean.

    That's what we've been assuming anyways...
    Is the documentation / knowledge out there so if a dev WANTED to start hand-tuning they could? I'm all for the driver staying clean, in my book understandable and maintainable code is better than handtuning the crap and making a mess out of code for that extra few percentage points of performance. I'm just making sure that if someone really really REALLY wanted to, the information was out there and then Mesa / the kernel devs could decide which path (performance or cleanliness) they wanted to walk.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    I think it's more likely that the hand-tweaking optimizations won't happen and the open source driver will stay clean.

    That's what we've been assuming anyways...
    I assume most of the missing 50% performance in radeon is not due to "some secret magic performance unlocking code" that catalyst has,
    but the accumulated effect of dozens of small optimizations that would make radeons code unclean if they were applied. Is that a fair assumption?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ancurio View Post
    I assume most of the missing 50% performance in radeon is not due to "some secret magic performance unlocking code" that catalyst has,
    but the accumulated effect of dozens of small optimizations that would make radeons code unclean if they were applied. Is that a fair assumption?
    Correct. Not only are there are number of 3D driver optimizations that could be done, there are also a lot of memory management optimizations that could be done to improve performance.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default Where's the 2D?

    While there are some Linux gamers, most of us are more concerned about scrolling PDF.js pages without dropping frames in maximized windows and driving 2, 3, or more monitors than we are about demanding 3D OpenGL games. It would be nice to see the cairo-perf-trace benchmarks become part of all the GPU and graphics stack reviews.

    It doesn't matter how well Quake 3 runs if I can't get vsynced compositing on all screens.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegemeister View Post
    While there are some Linux gamers, most of us are more concerned about scrolling PDF.js pages without dropping frames in maximized windows and driving 2, 3, or more monitors than we are about demanding 3D OpenGL games. It would be nice to see the cairo-perf-trace benchmarks become part of all the GPU and graphics stack reviews.

    It doesn't matter how well Quake 3 runs if I can't get vsynced compositing on all screens.
    Isn't it generally accepted that Radeon runs circles and flips desks around Catalyst when it comes to consistent 2D performance?

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    138

    Default

    I've abandoned fglrx soon after I discoverd open sauce can run my three monitor setup on HD6850 just fine and decided to take 3D performance loss for great 2D performance and absence of headaches over compatibility with various kernels, xorg etc etc.

    It seems that these days even perf 3D is coming close, so in near future it will be a no-brainer solution...

Posting Permissions

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