Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

15-Way Open-Source Intel/AMD/NVIDIA GPU Comparison

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    What on earth is up with the Radeon HD 6450?

    As far as performance, most of the 5xxx-6xxx Radeons are wiping the floor with everything else.
    I wonder if a "low-end" HD7xxx would be similar, since many of them still use the old architecture.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by lordmetroid View Post
      How suprising, I thought intel was on the top as they embraced free software. By these benchmarks it seems to be more beneficial to purchase an AMD CPU and use its internal graphic processor rather than an Intel CPU, or am I mistaken?
      If the only thing you care about is GPU performance...yes. But Intel smacks AMD around on CPU performance.

      Intel: Great CPU performance, better power consumption perfectly workable and acceptable GPU performance (You wont play games on high, but low and maybe even medium should be okay), video decode support

      AMD: Okayish CPU performance, worse power consumption (REALLY bad until you start running DPM kernels if your GPU is integrated), Good and acceptable GPU performance, no video decode support YET--You need kernel 3.10 and Mesa 9.2/10.0.

      Personally I'm sticking to Intel Integrated graphics unless I really need a discrete card, and at that point I'll get an AMD discrete, not an AMD integrated.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by lordmetroid View Post
        How suprising, I thought intel was on the top as they embraced free software. By these benchmarks it seems to be more beneficial to purchase an AMD CPU and use its internal graphic processor rather than an Intel CPU, or am I mistaken?
        You can't really conclude that from these benchmarks because Haswell drivers are still immature. The previous Phoronix Haswell benchmarks showed some problems with the current Haswell drivers, in fact with current distributions Haswell performed worse than Ivy Bridge when it should be much better.

        "No conclusions will be drawn at this time until the potential Haswell Linux performance bugs are uncovered and more extensive tests completed." http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...0k_linux&num=1

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Ibidem View Post
          What on earth is up with the Radeon HD 6450?

          As far as performance, most of the 5xxx-6xxx Radeons are wiping the floor with everything else.
          I wonder if a "low-end" HD7xxx would be similar, since many of them still use the old architecture.
          Radon 6450 is cheap low end passively cooled card, it's not meant to be a gamers card. It works fine for the markets its aimed at.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by Ericg View Post
            If the only thing you care about is GPU performance...yes. But Intel smacks AMD around on CPU performance.
            A lot of people care about money too. AMD looks much better if the metric is performance per dollar: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by chrisb View Post
              A lot of people care about money too. AMD looks much better if the metric is performance per dollar: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html
              yes, if you go for the mid end (completely reasonable for gaming/general purpose PC), then AMD CPUs give you more bang for your buck.

              And as far as the data you quoted: don't forget that Intel mobos are also more expensive (or much much more expensive if you want multiple x16 PCIe and 6+ SATA ports) so the gap is even wider.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by curaga View Post
                Intel is very stable if you stick to the versions Intel recommends (eg, use Ubuntu).
                https://01.org/linuxgraphics/downloads

                Or use fedora

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by curaga View Post
                  Intel is very stable if you stick to the versions Intel recommends (eg, use Ubuntu). If you deviate, intel starts to be far more unstable than radeon.
                  I'm an Arch Linux user, both gnome and kde (and games such as xonotix and HoN) work without a hitch on my Ivy 3570K with mesa stable.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    What's up with the 6870 versus the 6950?

                    The 6950 should have better performance from a hardware perspective, i.e. double the RAM and more stream processors, but in almost every benchmark in the article the 6870 seems faster. Any idea why?

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by Tillin9 View Post
                      The 6950 should have better performance from a hardware perspective, i.e. double the RAM and more stream processors, but in almost every benchmark in the article the 6870 seems faster. Any idea why?
                      Don't know for sure, but the two most likely possibilities seem to be (a) the 6950 has a lower clock and same number of ROPs so lower raw fill rate, (b) the shader translator / compiler might not be as well optimized for VLIW4 as for VLIW5.

                      EDIT -- didn't see an indication in the article re: whether Vadim's shader backend compiler was used, guess it's whatever is default in F19 (and I don't know what the default is).
                      Last edited by bridgman; 07-02-2013, 12:12 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X