Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LunarG ILO Gallium3D vs. Intel's DRI Driver On Mesa 10.3-devel

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

  • LunarG ILO Gallium3D vs. Intel's DRI Driver On Mesa 10.3-devel

    Phoronix: LunarG ILO Gallium3D vs. Intel's DRI Driver On Mesa 10.3-devel

    The Linux graphics benchmarks we have to publish today at Phoronix are some tests of the Intel "ILO" Gallium3D driver that is independently developed by LunarG as an unofficial alternative to the classic Intel Mesa DRI driver that's officially supported by the Intel Open-Source Technology Center.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20533

  • #2
    You should bench true games !

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by whitecat View Post
      You should bench true games !
      http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTUyNTU
      Michael Larabel
      http://www.michaellarabel.com/

      Comment


      • #4
        So this was mainline and not "glassy mesa" yet, I guess... I would have expected that, since both are developed by LunarG...

        Anyway, why is it that it is so far behind, even in opengl features, not only performance? Are they trying to find a way to reuse as much code as possible from intel's classic mesa driver?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by whitecat View Post
          You should bench true games !
          Actually, when benchmarking proprietary drivers, it is IMO best to use more unknown or niche games like FOSS shooters, because it's more likely that the drivers won't contain game/benchmark specific hacks and/or replacement shaders, so it's harder for the driver to cheat.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Ancurio View Post
            Actually, when benchmarking proprietary drivers, it is IMO best to use more unknown or niche games like FOSS shooters, because it's more likely that the drivers won't contain game/benchmark specific hacks and/or replacement shaders, so it's harder for the driver to cheat.
            I don't care about proprietary drivers. I'm talking about free drivers.

            Comment


            • #7
              You benchmarked Open Arena, Reaction Quake 3, Unvanquished, Warsow and Xonotic.
              Why all these pretty useless games ?
              That would be much more intersting to only test Xonotic and Doom 3 (for instance).

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by whitecat View Post
                You benchmarked Open Arena, Reaction Quake 3, Unvanquished, Warsow and Xonotic.
                Why all these pretty useless games ?
                That would be much more intersting to only test Xonotic and Doom 3 (for instance).
                Yep all those are id Tech 4 engine based games . Xonotic with different settings is enough to represent all those, then one id Tech 5 and one Source engine based, Cube 2, etc... .

                Actually i would like to see ioQuake, ioRTCW, ioXYZ... rend2 renderer is pretty decent (and low performer ) on those but different .
                Last edited by dungeon; 06-13-2014, 09:44 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ChrisXY View Post
                  So this was mainline and not "glassy mesa" yet, I guess... I would have expected that, since both are developed by LunarG...

                  Anyway, why is it that it is so far behind, even in opengl features, not only performance? Are they trying to find a way to reuse as much code as possible from intel's classic mesa driver?
                  Wondering the same thing...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ChrisXY View Post
                    So this was mainline and not "glassy mesa" yet, I guess... I would have expected that, since both are developed by LunarG...
                    This has been in git for a while as its in good enough state for someone to build and use if they wanted to. As far as I understand glassy mesa is still in the research phase, LunarG are not even suggesting it should be merged yet. There are also other things that will need to be worked out with glassy mesa such as the extra dependencies it adds e.g glslang.

                    Originally posted by ChrisXY View Post
                    Anyway, why is it that it is so far behind, even in opengl features, not only performance? Are they trying to find a way to reuse as much code as possible from intel's classic mesa driver?
                    I could be wrong but I believe the biggest obstacle in reusing code is the ilo shader backend needs to use tgsi ir which is different from the ir intel use for their shader backends.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dungeon View Post
                      Yep all those are id Tech 4 engine based games .
                      No, idTech 3.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ChrisXY View Post
                        So this was mainline and not "glassy mesa" yet, I guess... I would have expected that, since both are developed by LunarG...

                        Anyway, why is it that it is so far behind, even in opengl features, not only performance? Are they trying to find a way to reuse as much code as possible from intel's classic mesa driver?
                        Fewer developers.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by whitecat View Post
                          No, idTech 3.
                          Ah , thanks - typos fixed .

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X