Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

4K Ultra HD Graphics Card Testing On Ubuntu 14.04 LTS

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

  • 4K Ultra HD Graphics Card Testing On Ubuntu 14.04 LTS

    Phoronix: 4K Ultra HD Graphics Card Testing On Ubuntu 14.04 LTS

    With the release of Ubuntu 14.04 LTS "Trusty Tahr" right around the corner we have out today some new benchmarks of various AMD Radeon and NVIDIA GeForce graphics cards when testing them with the latest Linux GPU drivers on Ubuntu 14.04 at 4K (3840 x 2160).

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20023

  • #2
    Aspect ratio of 16:9 is good for watching movies. If you write code for a living you want vertical space, so at least 16:10.

    Where are all the 3830x2400 monitors?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Phoronix
      High-end AMD Radeon hardware on RadeonSI Gallium3D should be good enough, but we'll know for sure in our next 4K article when we focus exclusively upon the open-source graphics Ultra HD performance.
      Thank you very much

      Comment


      • #4
        I'd like to see older radeon cards with DP1.2 but i know you don't have a dp 4k monitor. I am waiting for the FOSS article.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by amehaye View Post
          Aspect ratio of 16:9 is good for watching movies. If you write code for a living you want vertical space, so at least 16:10.

          Where are all the 3830x2400 monitors?
          As someone who actually owns this monitor, and codes at it 6 hours a day: You're full of shit. The sheer amount of available space (0.42 m2) makes specific aspect ratios utterly meaningless from an application usage standpoint, as games and videos are the only sensible things to run fullscreen. I currently have a number of small terminal windows in a line above my IDE, where they are out of the way. That space is so far above my normal line of sight that it is actually annoying to have something I'm regularly looking at there.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by amehaye View Post
            Aspect ratio of 16:9 is good for watching movies. If you write code for a living you want vertical space, so at least 16:10.

            Where are all the 3830x2400 monitors?
            I guess they are keeping the 1920x1200 monitors warm :P

            16:10 is better, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for affordable 16:10 monitors.

            Comment


            • #7
              From the article 2nd page:
              [...]which means there's NVIDIA GeForce hardware to play with at Phoronix than AMD when it comes to latest generation components[...]
              I believe there should be a "more" between "there's" and "NVIDIA".

              Interesting article, thanks! I tried to compare this to the quad-monitor article from December http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...or_linux&num=1 (please don't bash me for linking to a phoronix article ) and it would seems quad monitor or 4k doesn't really make a difference for NVIDIA, they show almost same values for the comparable benchmarks: Unigine and Xonotic 0.7
              Is there any plan to have a set of default benchmarks in the future? It would be helpful when comparing different articles, in this case for example the quad monitor article had Doom3, Prey, all Unigine and Xonotic while this have Nexuiz, Reaction Quake, Unigine Heaven/Valley and Xonotic.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by amehaye View Post
                Aspect ratio of 16:9 is good for watching movies. If you write code for a living you want vertical space, so at least 16:10.

                Where are all the 3830x2400 monitors?

                As someone who writes code for a living, I would suggest that you investigate portrait mode (2160x3840) and see if it suits your needs. I tend to go for the best of both worlds and do a 2560x1440 center, and an 1080x1920 on each side.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by amehaye View Post
                  Aspect ratio of 16:9 is good for watching movies. If you write code for a living you want vertical space, so at least 16:10.

                  Where are all the 3830x2400 monitors?
                  There aren't enough people writing code demanding high resolution displays to justify a factory in China or Taiwan producing those panels. If there were, they would still be ludicrously more expensive than the 16:9 tv panels. I'd rather have 3x screens in 16:9 than 1x screen in 16;10. I can just put them in portrait mode if I want.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    For open source 4k support on newer radeons, make sure your kernel has this patch:
                    http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/ker...7ab1f9fc2686e1
                    It's in 3.14 and the stable kernel series.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Unigine Valley scales well, the opensource Quake3-ish games do not with AMD Catalyst. Looks to me like AMD is hitting the CPU bottleneck much faster than nVidia. If true, the upcoming OpenGL driver optimizations to reduce the overhead in AMD Catalyst should be very beneficial. We'll see if we learn something at GDC this week.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        See, free games have a use: Ultra HD (4K isn't the same thing, it's a bit larger) with one middle-end card, smoothly.

                        In any game, larger resolution improves graphics.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by amehaye View Post
                          Aspect ratio of 16:9 is good for watching movies. If you write code for a living you want vertical space, so at least 16:10.

                          Where are all the 3830x2400 monitors?
                          IBM T221 about a decade ago... Agreed though, 16:10 on a rotateable mount destroys all.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by zanny View Post
                            There aren't enough people writing code demanding high resolution displays to justify a factory in China or Taiwan producing those panels. If there were, they would still be ludicrously more expensive than the 16:9 tv panels. I'd rather have 3x screens in 16:9 than 1x screen in 16;10. I can just put them in portrait mode if I want.
                            It's simply more versatile across all types of media and workload, just as 1920x1200 is compared to 1920x1080. You can have the video full screen with the controls still visible. In games and video 16:10 uses more of your field of vision then 16:9 does. Fit more documents on screen at full size with application toolbars etc.

                            16:9 came about as a cost cutting measure, just as gimping out most screens to 1366x768 A.K.A. The Devil's resolution is a cost cutting measure.


                            The Meizu MX4G = 2560x1536 @ 5.5" 542.81dpi, get me a desktop screen that get.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Kivada View Post
                              It's simply more versatile across all types of media and workload, just as 1920x1200 is compared to 1920x1080. You can have the video full screen with the controls still visible. In games and video 16:10 uses more of your field of vision then 16:9 does. Fit more documents on screen at full size with application toolbars etc.

                              16:9 came about as a cost cutting measure, just as gimping out most screens to 1366x768 A.K.A. The Devil's resolution is a cost cutting measure.


                              The Meizu MX4G = 2560x1536 @ 5.5" 542.81dpi, get me a desktop screen that get.
                              You're preaching the choir, I'm just saying it is unlikely we will ever see high DPI 16:10 panels. The only reason we had them a decade ago, that kept them alive on life support to the modern day, is because LCD adoption first took place in the notebook and desktop space before TVs went flat panel. Once that happened, TVs dominated the panel industry and drove it towards 16:9.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X