Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Kepler: Nouveau Is ~20% The Speed Of NVIDIA's Blob

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,422

    Default Kepler: Nouveau Is ~20% The Speed Of NVIDIA's Blob

    Phoronix: Kepler: Nouveau Is ~20% The Speed Of NVIDIA's Blob

    With the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Linux review out of the way, I carried out some benchmarks comparing the performance of the open-source "Nouveau" driver to NVIDIA's official closed-source Linux graphics driver on this Kepler-based GK107 GPU. Similar to other NVIDIA GeForce 400/500/600 GPUs, if using the Nouveau driver as found by default on Ubuntu Linux and others, you can expect the performance to be less than 20% that of the official NVIDIA Linux driver...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ5NTA

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Kepler: Nouveau Is ~20% The Speed Of NVIDIA's Blob

    With the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Linux review out of the way, I carried out some benchmarks comparing the performance of the open-source "Nouveau" driver to NVIDIA's official closed-source Linux graphics driver on this Kepler-based GK107 GPU. Similar to other NVIDIA GeForce 400/500/600 GPUs, if using the Nouveau driver as found by default on Ubuntu Linux and others, you can expect the performance to be less than 20% that of the official NVIDIA Linux driver...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ5NTA
    aaaaaaaahahahahaha!

    Stay mad Nvididiots.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Why don't you underclock the card when it's on the binary blob so that we can compare the performance of the drivers in an equal setting?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boogerlad View Post
    Why don't you underclock the card when it's on the binary blob so that we can compare the performance of the drivers in an equal setting?
    He did that some time ago, and nouveau did quite well.

    Of course, bottlenecks and small delays tend to punish you more at higher clock speeds (larger proportion of each frame is spent waiting for the CPU), so the only real comparison would be to have them both running at full speed.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    221

    Default ???

    Quote Originally Posted by boogerlad View Post
    Why don't you underclock the card when it's on the binary blob so that we can compare the performance of the drivers in an equal setting?
    what the point?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrecorreia View Post
    what the point?
    The point is to compare clock for clock perfomance, which was done last year, where Nouveau almost perfomed the same as the binary drivers.
    This almost provides an idea of how well Nouveau would perform if it was capable of reclocking, compared to the nVidia's drivers.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UraniumDeer View Post
    The point is to compare clock for clock perfomance, which was done last year, where Nouveau almost perfomed the same as the binary drivers.
    This almost provides an idea of how well Nouveau would perform if it was capable of reclocking, compared to the nVidia's drivers.
    Except it doesn't.

    Because, as someone else already pointed out, most of the bottlenecks don't show up until you start rendering at high FPS speeds. Meaning underclocking automatically throws away 90% of the optimization work the binary drivers have worked on.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Except it doesn't.

    Because, as someone else already pointed out, most of the bottlenecks don't show up until you start rendering at high FPS speeds. Meaning underclocking automatically throws away 90% of the optimization work the binary drivers have worked on.
    Which is the reason I didn't say that it 'almost provides an idea', and not 'it shows how they will compare once Nouveau reach the same clock as nVidia drivers'.
    I really do hope that nVidia pushes some documentation through on this soon, though they've stated that that's some of the hardest documentation for them to release.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    .ca
    Posts
    392

    Default

    Yeah these benchmarks are borderline useless w/o clock info.

    From the log:
    nouveau [ DRM] 3 available performance level(s)
    nouveau [ DRM] 1: core 162MHz shader 324MHz memory 648MHz voltage 30mV
    nouveau [ DRM] 2: core 405MHz shader 810MHz memory 1080MHz voltage 30mV
    nouveau [ DRM] 3: core 1250MHz shader 2500MHz memory 1080MHz voltage 40mV
    nouveau [ DRM] c:
    nouveau [ DRM] MM: using COPY for buffer copies

    Unfortunately doesn't say what it used, but it has to be either 1 or 2, which in the latter case would be a factor of 3, and putting nouveau at ~60% of the blob.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by not.sure View Post
    Yeah these benchmarks are borderline useless w/o clock info.
    (...)
    nouveau [ DRM] 2: core 405MHz shader 810MHz memory 1080MHz voltage 30mV
    (...)

    Unfortunately doesn't say what it used, but it has to be either 1 or 2, which in the latter case would be a factor of 3, and putting nouveau at ~60% of the blob.
    In fact it doesn't matter, and even I was criticizing Phoronix for many benchmarks, this time it doesn't matter. Because for an user makes little difference when the driver is so crippled. It may be good to know that it uses less watts and it has "just" 60% of the "native" binary closed driver, but in the meantime it makes most of things you will use, like Gnome Shell (or KDE4) and your game playing not practical. Isn't it so?

Posting Permissions

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