That's much closer to what I was expecting current RadeonSI to be capable of. Several months ago, the experience was acceptable for my system (7850 on a Phenom II x6) as long as I wasn't running multiple GPU-using programs simultaneously. Now it's doing great with all software upgraded to the latest code-bases.
There are still improvements to be made, but it's definitely usable from my perspective.
This is exactly the kind of misguided thinking that poor benchmarks like this encourage.
Originally Posted by mmstick
The limitations a driver has when it's running > 100fps have NOTHING to do with the limitations you might run into on another card at a slower speed.
NOTHING AT ALL. THERE IS NO CORRELATION.
It's highly likely the oss driver is still slower on those cards, but we have no way of knowing, and it's probably from completely different bottlenecks than these tests are showing here.
This is why people constantly point out that glxgears is not a benchmark. And everyone continues to use it anyway, seeming to think that higher glxgears scores must mean something on more realistic tests, even though people keep saying not to do so.
What, power efficiency? Most people are running these games as fast as possible anyway, so it doesn't really matter whether you are running at 300fps or 350fps. They're both going to be maxing out the power requirements.
Originally Posted by blackout23
I think the newer games just use more shaders, which are just running full speed on the gpu hardware. The older games are probably more bandwidth/cpu limited, where the si driver clearly is not as optimized.
Originally Posted by ua=42
I've heard that someone is working on a kcm module for kde 5 to control Mesa settings in the system settings framework. That was a while ago, though.
Originally Posted by enfocomp
I find it odd that in that span of cards they all perform within pretty close margins of each other. I wonder how the 260x / 7770 perform? Are they in that same envelope? If that is the case, anyone looking at radeonSI gpus would get the best bang for the buck at the lowest end of the scale.
But that doesn't seem right. I thought the patches to enable all the cores went in a few Mesa versions ago? Why would hardware with only 2/3 the shaders (7850 vs 7950) perform on par or better in all these tests?
Last edited by zanny; 01-22-2014 at 06:16 PM.
the really problem is not 3d right now...
the really problem is not 3d right now, is the 2d performance, what i see in phoronix last 2d benchs, opensource are really bad
Good to see the progress. This IS pretty impressing. Yes, maybe fglrx is in most parts 2x the max. fps, but 120 fps is already a lot. I'm really impressed. If issues solve at this speed, then I hope Kabini/Kaveri is going to lift off soon on Linux. I can't wait for mainboard vendors to support Kaveri and bring Kabini boards and to see the 45W Kaveri in stores. Hopefully I can gift myself one for birthday this year.
Originally Posted by zanny
That is because they all have got 32 ROP units. So what this benchmarks are really testing is how fast this GPUs can push pixels onto screen. As others already stated benchmarks beyond 100fps are pretty much useless, you could simply use glxgears instead.
These cards need vertex and shader heavy food. The 7950 has a theoretical peak performance of 2.8 TFLOPS? Its compute units are just idling along with loads presented here.
This is competitive with r600g
In fact, these results mean that for gaming/openGL loads there should be no more need to root around for older r600/Evergreen/Northern Islands hardware. GLAMOR is still reported to be slow for 2d loads but that should not be too hard to fix-at least not on the larger cards and midsize cards. I've tested GLAMOR with r600g on my Radeon HD6750, the only time I can ever see a 2d performance reduction in GLAMOR compared to EXA is in video rendering transitions in Kdenlive. Question then becomes this: if GLAMOR is a frontend to OpenGL, what is GLAMOR doing that makes OpenGL slow down in RadeonSI? Is the issue in GLAMOR, or in one or more OpenGL commands that are still slow in RadeonSI?
Originally Posted by enfocomp
I can tell you that Catalyst also sucks for 2d acceleration, especially for XV video playback. Back in Summer 2012 one version was so slow it took a radeon 6750 just to play a 1080p video without lagging, the 5570 could not cut it. of course, the previous version of Catalyst crashed outright on XV playback. GLAMOR won't have to be that hot to beat it unless Catalyst has improved a hell of a lot in video work.
The problem of glamor is that in some cases it doesn't use GPU for rendering. In such cases it fallbacks to software rendering which is too slow in glamor. Bug report for this.
Originally Posted by Luke