Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Aradreth View Post
    The CPU is overclocked to make the GPU the bottle neck in tests.
    Yes, for games, but HD content playback should show something else - high usage on a normal CPU because there's no GPU support enabled in the drivers, yet. The overclocked CPU, in this case, invalidates the test, as there is no logic in using so much (unrealistic) computational power just to show that 'There is no UVD2 (Unified Video Decoder 2) support on Linux at this time'. They should have used something at 1.8 - 2 Ghz. and say 'look, the CPU usage jumps to 50 - 60% while playing this movie (average CPU) because there's not hardware acceleration'.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Josko View Post
      I didn't say that it isn't OpenGL, but ATI have/had problems with Wine games especialy Direct3D games(ATI is not supporting full OpenGL specification that are requied for wine to emulate Direct3D), but also OpenGL games like WoW have/had problems (not only crashes but also poor performance) so I want to know if it is working now or not...
      you will probably be quite disappointed if you attempt to look at wine on nvidia vs ati...

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by urfe View Post
        Yes, for games, but HD content playback should show something else - high usage on a normal CPU because there's no GPU support enabled in the drivers, yet. The overclocked CPU, in this case, invalidates the test, as there is no logic in using so much (unrealistic) computational power just to show that 'There is no UVD2 (Unified Video Decoder 2) support on Linux at this time'. They should have used something at 1.8 - 2 Ghz. and say 'look, the CPU usage jumps to 50 - 60% while playing this movie (average CPU) because there's not hardware acceleration'.
        im not really sure what you expect catalyst drivers to do about h264 either.. its not like they can magically speed up H264 decoding, you would need support for it in ffmpeg, or another h264 decoder.

        and theres no way in hell the ffmpeg project will include support for that stuff unless it were to be open...

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Redeeman View Post
          im not really sure what you expect catalyst drivers to do about h264 either.. its not like they can magically speed up H264 decoding, you would need support for it in ffmpeg, or another h264 decoder.

          and theres no way in hell the ffmpeg project will include support for that stuff unless it were to be open...
          Yes, you are right, I should have said something like 'there are no open specifications on how to use UVD'. Also, yes, that would be a ffmpeg job.

          Comment


          • #20
            Is there a phoronix test suite profile I can use to compare against my system? I've seen past articles where you provide the profile parameter that needs to be entered for comparison.

            Comment


            • #21
              @Michael: will we ever see a "Linux VGA Chart" at Phoronix ? ( like guru3d.com VGA Chart )

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Licaon View Post
                @Michael: will we ever see a "Linux VGA Chart" at Phoronix ? ( like guru3d.com VGA Chart )
                That ultimately will come through the Phoronix Test Suite.
                Michael Larabel
                http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                Comment


                • #23
                  Why are the scores of the 3750 and the 4850 exactly the same all the time? How is such a level of constancy between two different cards of two different generations possible? I don't understand.

                  I'm also not really impressed by the ``Enemy Territory: Quake Wars'' results because also in that case the 4850 scores exactly the same as the 3750, so I'm hoping the performance of the 48xx series will rise for that game too (I was a bit surprised that the developers mentioned that this score was what they expected).

                  Anyway: I agree with the conclusion, it is wonderful to see launch day Linux support and given the fact that AMD is working very hard on the Linux drivers, it will probably only improve.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Heiko View Post
                    Why are the scores of the 3750 and the 4850 exactly the same all the time? How is such a level of constancy between two different cards of two different generations possible? I don't understand.

                    I'm also not really impressed by the ``Enemy Territory: Quake Wars'' results because also in that case the 4850 scores exactly the same as the 3750, so I'm hoping the performance of the 48xx series will rise for that game too (I was a bit surprised that the developers mentioned that this score was what they expected).

                    Anyway: I agree with the conclusion, it is wonderful to see launch day Linux support and given the fact that AMD is working very hard on the Linux drivers, it will probably only improve.
                    New results coming out next week show a much greater performance delta (and the 4850/4870 pulling the lead over the 9800GTX) next week with various AA / AF levels.
                    Michael Larabel
                    http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Out of interest for the people on this thread.. A couple of questions...
                      1. What is the optimal framerate for game play (Maximum - 100+, or 50-100)
                      2. How important is Image Quality (AA/AF)? If the framerate acceptable, is it the way to go?
                      3. How important is resolution? Is bigger really better?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by mtippett View Post
                        Out of interest for the people on this thread.. A couple of questions...
                        1. What is the optimal framerate for game play (Maximum - 100+, or 50-100)
                        2. How important is Image Quality (AA/AF)? If the framerate acceptable, is it the way to go?
                        3. How important is resolution? Is bigger really better?
                        1. Depends on the game. For First Person Shooters anything above 100fps is optimal; the absolute minimal I'm willing to tolerate for pleasant gameplay is 30fps. For something like Strategy titles and top-down RPGs 20fps is acceptable.
                        2. Both AA and AF are very important to me. I always set AF to x16, since anything below is just not worth it (in terms of IQ). AA I can go for x2 while at high resolutions, but x4 is preferable.
                        3. Bigger is better for me.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Melcar View Post
                          1. Depends on the game. For First Person Shooters anything above 100fps is optimal; the absolute minimal I'm willing to tolerate for pleasant gameplay is 30fps. For something like Strategy titles and top-down RPGs 20fps is acceptable.
                          Okay, so realistically something ranging from your screen refresh rate to around 100 is a good target.

                          2. Both AA and AF are very important to me. I always set AF to x16, since anything below is just not worth it (in terms of IQ). AA I can go for x2 while at high resolutions, but x4 is preferable.
                          So for a FPS, you will adjust IQ settings (in game or in the drivers control panel), to keep it around the 100 fps mark. So any of the cards in the ATI Radeon HD 4850 review would be considered a suitable card at the default IQ settings... But you would make your decision on the performance with high IQ.

                          3. Bigger is better for me.
                          Most reviewers under Windows tend to review high end cards at 2560x1600 to see some level of differentation in the products. Is this resolution too high to be relevant, or should we look at that to see a spread in the hardware.

                          Originally posted by michael
                          New results coming out next week show a much greater performance delta (and the 4850/4870 pulling the lead over the 9800GTX) next week with various AA / AF levels.
                          And yes, I do know what Michael is referring to in his tease quoted above.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by mtippett View Post
                            Okay, so realistically something ranging from your screen refresh rate to around 100 is a good target.

                            Yes

                            So for a FPS, you will adjust IQ settings (in game or in the drivers control panel), to keep it around the 100 fps mark. So any of the cards in the ATI Radeon HD 4850 review would be considered a suitable card at the default IQ settings... But you would make your decision on the performance with high IQ.
                            I like to play with all the eye candy to the max if I can, but yes, I usually adjust IQ settings to get the desired effect. Which, by the way, I really miss being able to set profiles in the CCC; I really hope the feature can be implemented sometime in the future.

                            Most reviewers under Windows tend to review high end cards at 2560x1600 to see some level of differentation in the products. Is this resolution too high to be relevant, or should we look at that to see a spread in the hardware.
                            My current max resolution is 1680x1050, so I usually focus on the performance levels for that particular setting. Anything higher is irrelevant for me when it comes to trying to decide between cards (that is, until I get a bigger monitor ).

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I'm wondering if the driver currently treats the HD4870 like a v670 card limiting performance to about the same level.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I think we're just CPU and driver limited -- it seems crazy that the card isn't working hard at 1920x1080 but that's probably what's happening.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X