Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 71

Thread: Linux 3.12 Brings Big AMD Radeon Improvements

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    236

    Default

    Please, include E-350 into the testing mix.

    I've seen many testimonials of AMD Radeon 4850 owners who were unhappy with Linux 3.11. Couldn't this be simply a bug fix for Radeon 4850?

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,386

    Default

    See Michael's post #37...

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    I've been able to confirm this so far on a HD 6000 and HD 4000 different GPUs and a completely different PC.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,329

    Default

    The only thing I can think of that may have improved things is changing the default gart size on r7xx+ asics from 512M to 1024M. If anyone want to test different gart sizes, you can change the gart size with the gartsize radeon kernel module parameter. E.g., add radeon.gartsize=1024 to the kernel command line in grub. Default is 512M for r1xx-r6xx and 1024M for r7xx+.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    80

    Default my experience

    AMD 6850 / Nexuiz

    Kernel 3.11 old git ( HEAD is now at f7217b9 r600g: enable SB backend by default )

    NORMAL: 98,5 fps
    ULTRA: 56,8fps


    Kernel 3.12 / git commit 453ea2d309c0314bea8a209f536e2b3c2c4d92c6 / Date: Sun Oct 13 19:53:54 2013 +0400

    NORMAL: 206 fps
    ULTRA: 108 fps

    Pretty nice speed up for me.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Rural Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Something strange and potentially wonderful is afoot, methinks.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    598

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ObiWan View Post
    A10-6800 4,1 GHz - Gigabyte AMD Radeon HD 6870 1024MB (915/1050MHz)

    Kernel: 3.12.0-rc4:
    Code:
    Xonotic 0.7:
        pts/xonotic-1.3.1 [Resolution: 1920 x 1080 - Effects Quality: Ultra]
        Test 1 of 1
        Estimated Trial Run Count:    3
        Estimated Time To Completion: 11 Minutes
            Started Run 1 @ 21:07:15
            Started Run 2 @ 21:08:54
            Started Run 3 @ 21:10:34  [Std. Dev: 1.61%]
    
        Test Results:
            119.2862578
            116.5561488
            115.6666134
    
        Average: 117.17 Frames Per Second
        Minimum: 56
        Maximum: 264
    Kernel: 3.11.4:
    Code:
    Xonotic 0.7:
        pts/xonotic-1.3.1 [Resolution: 1920 x 1080 - Effects Quality: Ultra]
        Test 1 of 1
        Estimated Trial Run Count:    3
        Estimated Time To Completion: 11 Minutes
            Started Run 1 @ 21:15:28
            Started Run 2 @ 21:17:04
            Started Run 3 @ 21:18:39  [Std. Dev: 0.11%]
    
        Test Results:
            122.3697861
            122.3688075
            122.1429572
    
        Average: 122.29 Frames Per Second
        Minimum: 59
        Maximum: 264
    Thanks very much for the info !
    (I also would love to see some results in a E-350 and a A8-3870K...anyone ? I wanted this to have an idea what could be the theoretical performance of underclocked and undervolted A6-5400K and a A6-5200 (Kabini) )

    Edited...

    Wait, your A10-6800K results are with a dGPU, what we need is pure iGPU results ...
    Last edited by AJSB; 10-13-2013 at 01:21 PM.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Lovely. But even if performance wise the open driver would be the same as Catalyst I would still use the latter for two reasons:

    1. Power saving
    2. Configuration capabilities.

    While there is some work being done on 1 there is absolutely none on 2...

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by borsook View Post
    Lovely. But even if performance wise the open driver would be the same as Catalyst I would still use the latter for two reasons:

    1. Power saving
    2. Configuration capabilities.

    While there is some work being done on 1 there is absolutely none on 2...
    Open drivers should have power saving comparable to Catalyst now.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    655

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by borsook View Post
    Lovely. But even if performance wise the open driver would be the same as Catalyst I would still use the latter for two reasons:

    1. Power saving
    2. Configuration capabilities.

    While there is some work being done on 1 there is absolutely none on 2...
    What config cap You need?
    (I guess that its not multimonitor setup nor power saving options as that is either via gui, or via etc files)

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by przemoli View Post
    What config cap You need?
    (I guess that its not multimonitor setup nor power saving options as that is either via gui, or via etc files)
    Antialiansing settings, texture filtering settings, vsync etc etc. Plus using open drivers still is bothersome due to the situation with S3TC...

Posting Permissions

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