Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How Intel Graphics On Linux Compare To Open-Source AMD/NVIDIA Drivers

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

  • How Intel Graphics On Linux Compare To Open-Source AMD/NVIDIA Drivers

    Phoronix: How Intel Graphics On Linux Compare To Open-Source AMD/NVIDIA Drivers

    As earlier this week I did a 20-way AMD Radeon open-source comparison, looked at the most energy efficient Radeon GPUs for Linux gaming, and then yesterday provided a look at the fastest NVIDIA GPUs for open-source gaming with Nouveau, in this article is a culmination of all the open-source graphics tests this week while seeing how Intel Haswell HD Graphics fall into the mix against the open-source Radeon R600/RadeonSI and Nouveau NV50/NVC0 graphics drivers.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20832

  • #2
    I'll definitely be switching to Intel Graphics when they improve a bit more. They have impressive performance per watt, lower temp, and better open source support.

    Comment


    • #3
      I just ordered a Radeon HD 6570, passively cooled, for my media PC. Should work well enough for watching films, Youtube, and maybe stream Steam games.

      Comment


      • #4
        Eh, "16GB of DDR3 system memory". Does Michael have any clue about Intel graphics? The speed of system memory has huge effect on graphics performance. Was it ddr3-1600 or something decent for gaming? Switching to faster DDR3 might improve game performance 20-50%.

        Comment


        • #5
          Clue? No

          Originally posted by caligula View Post
          Eh, "16GB of DDR3 system memory". Does Michael have any clue about Intel graphics? The speed of system memory has huge effect on graphics performance. Was it ddr3-1600 or something decent for gaming? Switching to faster DDR3 might improve game performance 20-50%.
          DO you have any clue. Thats graphics memory, thats important, not the normal ddr system memory. And speed improvements of 20-50% are so wrong dude.. If its once cached, there wont be improvements. What I find sad is that Michael did not test the very latest Iris Pro Graphics.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by gotwig View Post
            DO you have any clue. Thats graphics memory, thats important, not the normal ddr system memory. And speed improvements of 20-50% are so wrong dude.. If its once cached, there wont be improvements. What I find sad is that Michael did not test the very latest Iris Pro Graphics.
            WTF man. System memory *IS* the graphics memory when talking about Intel HD graphics. What cache? L1-L3? You can't use e.g. instruction cache for graphics assets. L3 might be useful, don't know if Intel uses it for IGPU. However, the fastest DDR3 is twice as fast as ddr3-1333 or 1600. Of course it can improve speed at least 20%. Especially with bigger textures and resolutions.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by My8th View Post
              I'll definitely be switching to Intel Graphics when they improve a bit more. They have impressive performance per watt, lower temp, and better open source support.
              If you don't play games what's stopping you from switching now? If you do play games, switching TO intel is a stupid idea. If there's anything you should be waiting for improvement, it's AMD.

              Keep in mind the intel CPU in these tests is a high-end i7. Intel GPUs, AFAIK, get worse as you go with weaker models.


              Anyway, as an owner of an i5 Ivy Bridge laptop, I'm disappointed about how bad the support is. I have several games where they are nearly unplayable on it in linux but can run at nearly full detail and full frame rate in Windows. The same game will also play just fine using the open source radeon drivers, albeit not as smooth as it could be. I've also had rendering problems on intel, though many of those seem to have gone away with driver updates.

              Comment


              • #8
                Would be nice if Michael would compare Intel graphics to AMD APUs both on the open source stack. I assume most people thinking about going with an intel graphics would only consider an AMD APU as alternative, not discrete GPUs...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Figueiredo View Post
                  Would be nice if Michael would compare Intel graphics to AMD APUs both on the open source stack. I assume most people thinking about going with an intel graphics would only consider an AMD APU as alternative, not discrete GPUs...
                  It would have been nice ot include APUs, agreed.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by gotwig View Post
                    DO you have any clue. Thats graphics memory, thats important, not the normal ddr system memory. And speed improvements of 20-50% are so wrong dude.. If its once cached, there wont be improvements. What I find sad is that Michael did not test the very latest Iris Pro Graphics.
                    Caligula is right - IGP memory uses system memory, and unlike CPUs, the performance of a GPU is directly related to the frequency of the RAM. CPU tends to care more about latency than frequency, while GPUs care more about total bandwidth. Yes, cache does make a difference, but I never got the impression GPUs care that much about cache. I'm not aware of any discrete GPUs that have an L3 cache, and from what I do know, GPU caches tend to be really insignificant (like 1/4 the size of CPU caches). Since your system is as good as your worst hardware, if the RAM isn't fast enough, your cache won't keep up.

                    I would have to comment though, that intel graphics don't get as much of a performance boost as AMD graphics with faster RAM; a 20% improvement seems like a little too much for intel.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X