Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Intel Performance Still In Bad Shape

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

  • Ubuntu Intel Performance Still In Bad Shape

    Phoronix: Ubuntu Intel Performance Still In Bad Shape

    We began talking about Intel graphics regressions in Ubuntu 9.04 back in January but for the most part that went under the radar at Canonical up until Ubuntu 9.04 was nearing release. At that point it was then explored whether greedy migration heuristics improved performance as the UXA acceleration architecture was still too problematic to enable by default. We had found that using some of the latest kernel code had improved the performance some, but still there were major regressions within Intel's new Linux driver stack.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13800

  • #2
    Why do you even look at karmic right now? It has been 13 days since the release of 9.04. You can not expect anything from it yet.

    Comment


    • #3
      I've noticed some more serious regressions on Fedora, affecting intel 915gm and 945gm chipsets. The release of fedora 11 will mark one year since these problems occurred.
      It's only obvious Ubuntu will suffer from them as well.

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm thinking Intel might be backing porting the DRI drivers over to Gallium3D.

        Comment


        • #5
          Fedora recently built:

          kernel-2.6.29.2-129.fc11.x86_64
          mesa-dri-drivers-7.5-0.9.fc11.x86_64
          mesa-libGL-7.5-0.9.fc11.x86_64
          mesa-libGL-devel-7.5-0.9.fc11.x86_64
          mesa-libGLU-7.5-0.9.fc11.x86_64
          mesa-libGLU-devel-7.5-0.9.fc11.x86_64
          xorg-x11-drv-intel-2.7.0-4.fc11.x86_64

          With those levels, kernel mode setting and UXA are very stable (on my G45/X4500HD), and performance is good. Compiz still has some issues, but stability is improving quickly at this point.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by macemoneta View Post
            Fedora recently built:

            kernel-2.6.29.2-129.fc11.x86_64
            mesa-dri-drivers-7.5-0.9.fc11.x86_64
            mesa-libGL-7.5-0.9.fc11.x86_64
            mesa-libGL-devel-7.5-0.9.fc11.x86_64
            mesa-libGLU-7.5-0.9.fc11.x86_64
            mesa-libGLU-devel-7.5-0.9.fc11.x86_64
            xorg-x11-drv-intel-2.7.0-4.fc11.x86_64

            With those levels, kernel mode setting and UXA are very stable (on my G45/X4500HD), and performance is good. Compiz still has some issues, but stability is improving quickly at this point.
            Sweet! You have Gallium3D enabled?

            Comment


            • #7
              The opengl problem started happening with mesa master (7.6) around 5/5 and there were no problems running any of those on 5/4, you just happened to catch a transient bug when you decided to benchmark Such is the life of daily builds though Of course karmic's linux-libc-dev is broken right now and most packages wont build to update and see if it's fixed. If anything I would recommend benchmarking jaunty's UXA (instead of EXA that you used) vs karmic's UXA with xorg-edgers drivers though to see actual performance increase/decreases, perhaps even using mesa 7.5 in edger's jaunty section instead of 7.6 so all tests can be run. UXA in general has a big performance hit on all of my GMA950 hardware.. I don't game on intel GMA though so thats the least of my worries.. UXA only just stabilized enough to be used full time on my 945GME aspire one on may 2nd.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by wswartzendruber View Post
                Sweet! You have Gallium3D enabled?
                As far as I know Gallium3D is not yet enabled in Mesa 7.5.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Seriously??

                  I've come to expect shoddy reporting on this site. The articles are just an excuse to link to your own content. Most of the sentences don't even make sense because you're trying to link every story that you've ever written about a topic. There's no discussion of what's actually happening. There are a few "paragraphs" at the beginning of the article, which are mostly included for linking.
                  Then there's the ubiquitous graphs throughout that just take up space. Honestly, just say, "performance regressed 13% on test X from 9.04 to 9.10." I'm perfectly capable of reading. My favorite part is the explanation of some of the graphs. After a graph that reads 1329.31 for 9.04 and 906.15 for 9.10, we get some fabulous insight: "The lines composition performance had regressed." Or how about this: "The performance with the transformed blit bilinear operation was nearly the same." If you take out the test name (and associated grammatical necessities it introduces, which is six words), the explanation is a whopping six words, of which none are insightful.

                  Who is the target the audience? If its new users to the site (who presumably wouldn't know much about Linux graphics benchmarks) then why the dependence on graphs that don't make much sense? What's a JXRenderMark?? If the audience is experienced users who visit the site, why the constant re-hashing of everything you've ever done on the topic? People who read the site at all know about these regressions, and there's no need to link to 16 Phoronix articles (vs. two non-Phoronix articles). I understand a section at the end for further reading, but there's no reason it needs to take up article space. I guess it makes sense when you realize that the article is 623 words, of which 63 are hyperlinked text. I wish I could insert a graph... but I'll also tell you that it's just over 10% of the words, which is one in 10.

                  I think that this one really takes it to a new low; as another poster pointed out, it's been two weeks since 9.04 was released. Combine that with an inflammatory headline, and there is no value in this "article."

                  Phoronix has really gone overboard with its test suite. Who cares about this stuff? There's nothing here that matters to anyone. Even if performance has regressed, which is presumably important to (future) users, there's no discussion about why it has or what can be done to minimize it. Any system in a computer is extraordinarily complex, especially something like graphics that is integrated at so many parts; yet, there's no technical information. No code analysis. No quotes or views from developers. There really isn't anything but a couple pages of graphs with painfully obvious commentary.

                  I understand this is going to piss a lot of people off, but there's no denying its true.

                  This is over the line, but I simply can't resist. James Downey (from Billy Madison) said, "what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

                  I've been reading this site for probably about 1.5 years. This article is not unique; I usually bite my tongue and don't say anything; I don't like to mean to people and ridicule them, but at some point, it's just too much. This post is very negative, and I'm not going to apologize for that. Maybe it's a little too blunt, but we're all adults. That being said, there is some decent stuff on this site. I just wish that there wasn't such an effort to constantly publish articles, even when there's nothing to report.

                  As an ending note, I thought that it would be humorous to point out the length of this post: 670 words.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well said.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Regardless, every kernel version since 2.6.28 has seen improvements in GEM's speed, and this will speed up UXA. As far as OpenGL goes, let's hold off until the end of the year when Gallium3D is more mainstream.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Yeah, Phoronix usually goes a bit overboard with pimping its test suite, but given its business model, I can usually ignore the shameless self-promotion. However, I do agree that this article is fairly useless.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by jbrown96 View Post
                          I've come to expect shoddy reporting on this site...
                          Well we come here anyway, don't we?! :-)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I think KMS is the key here, Ubuntu needs to enable that. Let's see some new benchmarks then.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I'm a bit disappointed with Phoronix here, too. I've experienced a near 6x improvement in 3D gaming performance on my G43, but this article only has one basic 3D test among a bunch of 2D ones. They also only tested one Intel IGP. Had they tested more chipsets and done more 3D tests, maybe there could have been some insight (i.e. if Intel is focusing more on 3D and newer chipsets at the expense of 2D performance on older chips). With such a narrow view, I'm not really surprised Canonical didn't pay much attention to Phoronix's warnings of performance regressions.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X