Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Initial AMD Radeon R9 270X Linux Benchmarks

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,406

    Default Initial AMD Radeon R9 270X Linux Benchmarks

    Phoronix: Initial AMD Radeon R9 270X Linux Benchmarks

    I mentioned that Radeon R9 270X Linux benchmarks would be coming and now I have the first Ubuntu Linux results to post of the Radeon R9 270X with the Catalyst driver...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ4OTY

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,445

    Default

    Michael, due to AMD's recent profits, the possible usage of using them for SteamOS, and the overall greatly improving state of the radeon drivers, there's a probability they might start shipping stuff to you again sometime in the future. I don't expect they'll do it for this generation of GPUs but maybe next year's models.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,162

    Default

    Just switched back to opensource radeon after seeing how much better Team Fortress 2 runs with them compared with Catalyst, it's not even funny (HD 6870).

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by d2kx View Post
    Just switched back to opensource radeon after seeing how much better Team Fortress 2 runs with them compared with Catalyst, it's not even funny (HD 6870).
    I don't know what you mean, and I don't get criticism about Catallyst performances with games.
    Either you are lying, or Phoronix results are completely false.

    The R9 270x gives, in Windows, about 75% of the performance compared to the gtx 680.
    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_270X/26.html

    Comparing the results just posted by Michael with the latest ones about the GTX 680, the R9 270x gives about the 80% or more, the performance of the GTX680.
    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...july2013&num=6

    So the catalyst apparently have better performances than nvidia's driver in Linux with games.
    And looking at a recent comparison of the nvidia drivers with linux and windows, nvidia drivers performs very well in linux.

    So all in all, either you or Michael's results are lying.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sonnet View Post
    So all in all, either you or Michael's results are lying.
    Or maybe GPUs cannot just be compared by saying "GPU A is 80% as fast as GPU B in Game X". It depends on screen resolution (higher resolution favors GPUs with more memory bandwidth), quality (higher quality favors GPUs with more computing power), CPU (faster CPUs favor drivers with more CPU-heavy optimizations), thermal design of the computer (good thermal design allows the GPU to run at full boost) and so on.

    If one benchmark says 75% and the other 80%, that's normal, even when using the same game.



    Michael, have you tried the open source drivers? It's unlikely that a card with a new chip (Curaçao or Hawaii) works, but.. well.. maybe it does?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rohcQaH View Post
    Or maybe GPUs cannot just be compared by saying "GPU A is 80% as fast as GPU B in Game X". It depends on screen resolution (higher resolution favors GPUs with more memory bandwidth), quality (higher quality favors GPUs with more computing power), CPU (faster CPUs favor drivers with more CPU-heavy optimizations), thermal design of the computer (good thermal design allows the GPU to run at full boost) and so on.
    If one benchmark says 75% and the other 80%, that's normal, even when using the same game.
    Michael, have you tried the open source drivers? It's unlikely that a card with a new chip (Curaçao or Hawaii) works, but.. well.. maybe it does?
    1- I considered only fhd resolutions, or 2560 one.Cpu was the same for both cards, unde linux. Since I considered high resolutions only, by your reasoning
    GTX 680, should be favoured (since it's the one with more computing power and bandwidth).

    2-No, your arguments are moot. While differences might arise, when the same trend is confirmed by 10 or more different test in both platforms,
    I guess it's more than safe and logic to get an idea of what's going on. There's no discrepancy in mor ethan 10 test that could even potentially hint what you're saying.
    The guy above said that the Catalyst have crappy performances, while tests say a different thing, and ironically shows even better performances than Nvidia drivers,
    comparatively.
    So either Michael's results are false or Catalyst offers good 3d performances in games.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    617

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sonnet View Post
    1- I considered only fhd resolutions, or 2560 one.Cpu was the same for both cards, unde linux. Since I considered high resolutions only, by your reasoning
    GTX 680, should be favoured (since it's the one with more computing power and bandwidth).

    2-No, your arguments are moot. While differences might arise, when the same trend is confirmed by 10 or more different test in both platforms,
    I guess it's more than safe and logic to get an idea of what's going on. There's no discrepancy in mor ethan 10 test that could even potentially hint what you're saying.
    The guy above said that the Catalyst have crappy performances, while tests say a different thing, and ironically shows even better performances than Nvidia drivers,
    comparatively.
    So either Michael's results are false or Catalyst offers good 3d performances in games.
    A lot of people seem to have problems with Catalyst + TF2, it's probably a special case.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sonnet View Post

    The guy above said that the Catalyst have crappy performances, while tests say a different thing, and ironically shows even better performances than Nvidia drivers,
    comparatively.
    So either Michael's results are false or Catalyst offers good 3d performances in games.
    As a user of catalyst on linux, and windows, I have seen the Linux driver improve allot, over the last year.

    It took them a while, but to name one game Serious Sam 3 now runs as good on Linux, as on Windows under DirectX.

    My card is however not very new..... HD5750 1 gig ram.

    What I am trying to say, the drivers were bad before, but have improved allot.

    I am very sceptic, about this also happened without steam for Linux, but at the moment I can't complain.

    I do not know about newer hardware, but the Catalyst linux drivers are close to or maybe a bit faster with some games, compared to windows.
    Also outside games.

    Finally just as good as that other os. dual boot pc. openSUSE 12.3 64 bit - W7 pro 32 bit.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sonnet View Post
    I don't know what you mean, and I don't get criticism about Catallyst performances with games.
    Either you are lying, or Phoronix results are completely false.

    The R9 270x gives, in Windows, about 75% of the performance compared to the gtx 680.
    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_270X/26.html

    Comparing the results just posted by Michael with the latest ones about the GTX 680, the R9 270x gives about the 80% or more, the performance of the GTX680.
    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...july2013&num=6

    So the catalyst apparently have better performances than nvidia's driver in Linux with games.
    And looking at a recent comparison of the nvidia drivers with linux and windows, nvidia drivers performs very well in linux.

    So all in all, either you or Michael's results are lying.
    I'm an ATI guy, through and through. I buy ATi cards, gifted a laptop with A10 chipset to my fiancee
    and my next desktop will most likely be AMD/ATi powered (unless they somehow botch Linux support).

    L4D2 lagged and flunctuated fps-wise with Catalyst 13.8 on Ubuntu 13.10, whereas open-source drivers provide me with a more stable
    and enjoyable experience. I have no reason to lie.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sonnet View Post
    I don't know what you mean, and I don't get criticism about Catallyst performances with games.
    Either you are lying, or Phoronix results are completely false.
    I think it's not about FPS as such but the performance overall. For example, Portal with Catalyst suffered terrible input lag making it practically unplayable, which is a feat for a game like Portal. With Mesa 10 it's fine even at high quality settings on my A8-3850.

    I realise the lag issue was resolved a while ago but I also experienced a number of other issues with Catalyst such that I'd rather stick with the open-source drivers.

Posting Permissions

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