Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Radeon Catalyst: Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 12.04 LTS

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

  • AMD Radeon Catalyst: Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 12.04 LTS

    Phoronix: AMD Radeon Catalyst: Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 12.04 LTS

    Now having compared the graphics driver performance between Microsoft Windows 7 and Ubuntu 12.04 Linux for the NVIDIA driver with the GeForce GTX 680 and the multi-platform Intel performance for Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge, here's a look at the AMD Catalyst driver performance with the Radeon HD 7950 graphics card when running between Windows 7 and Ubuntu Linux.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17375

  • #2
    And Ubuntu Studio low latency kernel?

    Ubuntu Studio is also LTE

    It has a low latency kernel

    Kernel that can be installed for testing

    MS WOS has a 300 Hz kernel, Ubuntu a 100 Hz one, and Ubuntu Studio a 1000 Hz

    As easy as:

    sudo apt-get install linux-headers-lowlatency
    sudo apt-get install linux-lowlatency
    sudo update-grub

    And of course use metacity instead of compiz for opengl benchmarks

    All of this was said last MS WOS vs Ubuntu benchmarks

    Why not improve this tests with this suggestions?

    My Linux gaming is better with low latency kernels, and with Sabayon, but that is other article, opengl gaming performance between Ubuntu, Arch, Sabayon and Suse or Fedora with high and low latency kernels.

    Comment


    • #3
      That's rather impressive for AMD, Radeon used to lag significantly behind on Linux.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by mitcoes View Post
        Why not improve this tests with this suggestions?
        There are literally thousands of variations that can be tested. Different kernels, compiler flags, window managers, distros, hardware, drivers...
        If you combine every variation you will and up with millions of tests. You want low latency kernels, a kwin dev wants tests with 4 different compositor backends each with 3 different configs...

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm glad that AMD finally uped their game when it comes to gaming on Linux but theres a lot to be desired.Im also trying low latency kernel right now,...not playing well with kde.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by talvik View Post
            There are literally thousands of variations that can be tested. Different kernels, compiler flags, window managers, distros, hardware, drivers...
            If you combine every variation you will and up with millions of tests. You want low latency kernels, a kwin dev wants tests with 4 different compositor backends each with 3 different configs...
            Not to mention: how many poke around these options? I think this test is a fair "out-of-the-box" comparison. Which I guess is relevant for the intended audience of the benchmarked operating systems.
            Also, submitting results to OpenBenchmarking is available to anyone. Wanna see tweaked benchmarks? Roll up your sleeves and get to it.

            I second bug77's comment, I too would have thought the results would show a larger delta in windows' favor.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by PsynoKhi0 View Post
              Not to mention: how many poke around these options? I think this test is a fair "out-of-the-box" comparison. Which I guess is relevant for the intended audience of the benchmarked operating systems.
              Also, submitting results to OpenBenchmarking is available to anyone. Wanna see tweaked benchmarks? Roll up your sleeves and get to it.

              I second bug77's comment, I too would have thought the results would show a larger delta in windows' favor.
              It is a fair "out of box" for Ubuntu users (which, granted, makes up a large part of Linux users), but that's not entirely fair considering the recent Phoronix article showing Unity and KDE being significantly slower (in visual performance) than Gnome3, XFE, & LXDE. Linux Mint is very popular and sports a distro of all three (Cinnamon instead of Gnome3) as do many others. So I would like to see out-of-the box visual benchmarks with a Linux system that's geared towards higher visual performance.

              I'm not sure why the author chooses to use Ubuntu over Arch or other build-it-yourself distros first (as a sort of peak performance case-senerio for Linux) and Ubuntu (with default settings) as a side comparison. Let people know what their machines are capable of with Linux, even if it requires a bit of tweaking or distro-switching to get there.

              Comment


              • #8
                It would be nice with a Direct3D comparison for the Unigine benchmarks, just as a reference to compare the healthiness of the OpenGL performance.

                Otherwise, good work

                mitcoes:
                In your experience, how much does the low latency kernel impact the performance of different games/benchmarks?

                Comment


                • #9
                  @F i L

                  Go to http://openbenchmarking.org/ and do that yourself. Its already been explained 100 times why he does it the way he does it.
                  No matter what distribution he used or settings there would be more like you posting here crying he did not use a certain flag here
                  or tweak a setting there. Its about default installs, and arch's default is the prompt.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by soupbowl View Post
                    @F i L

                    Go to http://openbenchmarking.org/ and do that yourself.
                    Are you going to pay him a windows7 license and/or the same hardware used in the test?
                    I'm asking just to make some sense to your reply.

                    Anyway, i still ask for benchmarks to be made without any WM and in fullscreen, even with the other default ubuntu configuration.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      To anyone proposing different configurations/distros.

                      Go ahead grab pts and run the benchmarks. It is stupid simple. Show that your configuration makes a significant difference(not just a few percent) and I am sure it will be considered.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by soupbowl View Post
                        @F i L

                        Go to http://openbenchmarking.org/ and do that yourself. Its already been explained 100 times why he does it the way he does it.
                        No matter what distribution he used or settings there would be more like you posting here crying he did not use a certain flag here
                        or tweak a setting there. Its about default installs, and arch's default is the prompt.
                        I don't appreciate your ad hominem implication. I'm not "crying" by suggesting a logic reason for someone who spends there time running a website, which boast Linux benchmarking as key attraction, to actually benchmark with more comparable systems. I personally don't have the time or resources to benchmark a multitude of machines, so your cheeky suggestion to "do it myself" is out of the question, this is the reason I browse Phoronix.com in the first place.

                        And if it's been explained 100 times already with the arguments you just gave, then I find those reasons to be in error. No one expects the absolute best-possible combination of settings in the benchmarks, but that's no excuse for using a provably slower default system when there are other common Linux systems with much better "default" performance (Ubuntu Studio, Linux Mint, Elementry, Pear OS, Arch, ect...). Using Arch is a logical choice because it's designed to be lightweight, fast, up-to-date, and easily customizable.

                        Remember, I never said that benchmarking a default Ubuntu system was a bad idea, only that it should be second to benchmarking a better Linux setup.

                        -----

                        On a completely unrelated note (and not directed at soupbowl): I've ran a OpenGL vs DirectX comparison between Linux and Windows 7/8 recently on two dual-booted systems. The nVidia Card (280GT I think) got significantly better performance with GL on Arch Linux (100+ fps more) vs DX on Win8; however the AMD Radeon HD 4870 O.C. got significantly (as in ~half) the performance on Ubuntu 12.04 that it did on Win7. This was my own code, which largely tests pixel shader ops and render targets (barely any polygons), so take all that with a grain of salt.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by soupbowl View Post
                          @F i L

                          Go to http://openbenchmarking.org/ and do that yourself. Its already been explained 100 times why he does it the way he does it.
                          No matter what distribution he used or settings there would be more like you posting here crying he did not use a certain flag here
                          or tweak a setting there. Its about default installs, and arch's default is the prompt.
                          I don't appreciate your ad hominem implication. I'm not "crying" by suggesting a logic reason for someone who spends there time running a website, which boast Linux benchmarking as key attraction, to actually benchmark with more comparable systems. I personally don't have the time or resources to benchmark a multitude of machines, so your cheeky suggestion to "do it myself" is out of the question, this is the reason I browse Phoronix.com in the first place.

                          And if it's been explained 100 times already with the arguments you just gave, then I find those reasons to be in error. No one expects the absolute best-possible combination of settings in the benchmarks, but that's no excuse for using a provably slower default system when there are other common Linux systems with much better "default" performance (Ubuntu Studio, Linux Mint, Elementry, Pear OS, Arch, ect...). Using Arch is a logical choice because it's designed to be lightweight, fast, up-to-date, and easily customizable.

                          Remember, I never said that benchmarking a default Ubuntu system was a bad idea, only that it should be second to benchmarking a better Linux setup.

                          -----

                          On a completely unrelated note (and not directed at soupbowl): I've ran a OpenGL vs DirectX comparison between Linux and Windows 7/8 recently on two dual-booted systems. The nVidia Card (280GT I think) got significantly better performance with GL on Arch Linux (100+ fps more) vs DX on Win8; however the AMD Radeon HD 4870 O.C. got significantly (as in ~half) the performance on Ubuntu 12.04 that it did on Win7. This was my own code, which largely tests pixel shader ops and render targets (barely any polygons), so take all that with a grain of salt.

                          [EDIT: forums is fucking up, third tries a charm]

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            What I'd like to see is more graphics cards. Can we expect the same performance differences with lower specced cards? Oh, and BTW it seems that nvidia has more tests that favor Ubuntu. I'd like to see Qaridarium unravel that one

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by mitcoes View Post
                              Ubuntu Studio is also LTE

                              It has a low latency kernel

                              Kernel that can be installed for testing

                              MS WOS has a 300 Hz kernel, Ubuntu a 100 Hz one, and Ubuntu Studio a 1000 Hz
                              Ubuntu has 250Hz kernel. Suspend composition should give better results under Ubuntu, but it's disabled for now.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X