Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: SNA Continues To Be Far Better Than UXA, GLAMOR

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,810

    Default SNA Continues To Be Far Better Than UXA, GLAMOR

    Phoronix: SNA Continues To Be Far Better Than UXA, GLAMOR

    Intel's Chris Wilson has shared new performance data of UXA vs. GLAMOR vs. his prized SNA acceleration architecture for Intel 2D acceleration on the Linux desktop. To no incredible surprise, SNA is far better than UXA and GLAMOR for an Intel Iris Pro 5200 graphics processor...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ3Mzk

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    48

    Default Slow

    Why is GLAMOR so slow? Lack of optimization?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wpoely86 View Post
    Why is GLAMOR so slow? Lack of optimization?
    Because it runs on top of OpenGL and OpenGL is not meant to decode video. It's a hack by AMD because they don't want to expose the real thing(TM) in their GPUs because of patent issues.
    Last edited by wargames; 10-01-2013 at 01:00 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wargames View Post
    Because it runs on top of OpenGL and OpenGL is not meant to decode video. It's a hack by AMD because they don't want to expose the real thing(TM) in their GPUs because of patent issues.
    Expect that is used for cairo-image here. Something which OpenGL should be able to do very well?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    343

    Default

    Wayland will be big performance regression if Wayland applications won't be able to use SNA. I guess it is intentional to force people to buy faster computers.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JS987 View Post
    Wayland will be big performance regression if Wayland applications won't be able to use SNA. I guess it is intentional to force people to buy faster computers.
    SNA-enabled driver lives in Xorg and is optimized around the X protocol, I think it's mostly XRender, maybe more. It runs in the server process. The performance might not directly translate to client-side rendering, but still probably be fast.
    For now, X apps running on wayland will use it on Intel hardware because Xorg intel driver is Wayland-aware. Wayland will benefit from it when SNA stuff is ported and tuned to be e.g. a Cairo backend (insert your own graphics library). I think something like that will come as Wayland gets its share of desktops (and, since it's not limited only to what can pass through XRender, even more stuff could be accelerated).

    Of course, deep device-specific optimization like this is of course faster than hw-independent approach like GLAMOR, unless someone figures out how to do something similar in OpenGL (designing specific extensions etc.).

    At least this is my understanding. X/Wayland/driver devs certainly know more about this stuff.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wargames View Post
    It's a hack by AMD because they don't want to expose the real thing(TM) in their GPUs because of patent issues.
    Hack by AMD? You do realize GLAMOR is an Intel project?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JS987 View Post
    Wayland will be big performance regression if Wayland applications won't be able to use SNA. I guess it is intentional to force people to buy faster computers.
    Ideally, only a few applications would use XWayland on a Wayland powered desktop.

    Since you don't rely on X compositing for moving windows, ... performance of the DDX matters less.

    For games, the performance to copy buffers by the DDX is important. I've not compared copy performance of SNA vs Glamor, but since we manipulate GL buffers, I assume Glamor shouldn't perform worse.

    Last discussions were about having only one Wayland DDX and integrate XWayland code to the DDX (and not in X). That way the DDX can do clever things around the buffers sent to Wayland, and avoid as much as possible copies and tearings.
    Last edited by mannerov; 10-01-2013 at 03:49 PM. Reason: grammar mistake

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fuzz View Post
    Hack by AMD? You do realize GLAMOR is an Intel project?
    Clearly he doesn't, but I bet his ignorance is laughing at him in chorus.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
    Clearly he doesn't, but I bet his ignorance is laughing at him in chorus.
    LOL, I was absolutely wrong!

Posting Permissions

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