Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD R600/700 2D Performance: Open vs. Closed Drivers

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by b15hop View Post
    So what are the concerns about vista then?
    Perfomances are not good, and the interface is a bit confusing.
    I used it just for a couple of hours, but I found myself lost in the menus. XP was somehow more simpler and straitforward.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by chrisr View Post
      I for one would not be happy if my work consisted solely of cleaning up other people's buggy code.
      Have them swap sides every month. Or better, have a regular competition to find more bugs in the other group's code than they can in yours.

      Hey, it works for NASA.

      Comment


      • #48
        So when, if ever, will linux have as good 2d acceleration as windows?

        Is it because of EXA, kde/gnome, Xorg or another peace of the gui system?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
          That's not really relevant in this... Windows with or Without seems more responsive than Linux with or without compositing.
          Compositing on Windows was since Vista. Back when it was still called Longhorn, and when GPGPU computing was non-existant, the idea was that if the UI was to run on the GPU then Windows would become faster (Vista was to be the Mac OS X experience on future Windows PC's). Then there came 3D desktops and Vista needed to have that feature too.

          So now you have shitty performance with the 2D desktop (burden on the CPU) and the only way to activate GPU accelerated desktop was by enabling compositing which was also putting more burden on system performance.

          The workaround? Demand more CPU and GPU time. So on computers that run terribly slow with Vista you still get an insanely respnsive GUI with terrible compute performance.

          So there is no way to compare Windows performance with Linux but to test it on Windows XP...

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
            The workaround? Demand more CPU and GPU time. So on computers that run terribly slow with Vista you still get an insanely respnsive GUI with terrible compute performance.

            So there is no way to compare Windows performance with Linux but to test it on Windows XP...
            Eh, isn't that mostly optimizing for desktop performance at the cost of other stuff?

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
              That's not really relevant in this... Windows with or Without seems more responsive than Linux with or without compositing.
              which "Windows" ?

              you already tried a kernel with BFS and/or 2.6.32-rc1 ?

              those have the latest changes in cpu scheduling which should make desktop interactivity significantly better

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
                which "Windows" ?
                But Windows 7 RC, naturally. You don't honestly think I'd pay for any of their earlier productions? (actually might for Windows 7) Anyway, getting offtopic here.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                  So now you have shitty performance with the 2D desktop (burden on the CPU) and the only way to activate GPU accelerated desktop was by enabling compositing which was also putting more burden on system performance.
                  I wonder why so many semi-professionals have the idea that 2D=CPU and 3D=GPU, and therefor "3D is faster".

                  I don't recall who often I have heard people stating that 2D rendering will be accelerated by your 3D engine because of compiz or similar bullshit.

                  2D is accelerated by the GPU if the driver is capable (currently all major dirvers except fglrx). period.

                  - Clemens

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Linuxhippy View Post
                    I wonder why so many semi-professionals have the idea that 2D=CPU and 3D=GPU, and therefor "3D is faster".

                    I don't recall who often I have heard people stating that 2D rendering will be accelerated by your 3D engine because of compiz or similar bullshit.

                    2D is accelerated by the GPU if the driver is capable (currently all major dirvers except fglrx). period.
                    2D on Windows Vista and 7 is just as much accelerated by the GPU as CPU Ray tracing is. 2D in NT6.0 is pure fallback. So like: hey let's render this in software and then send the entire desktop to the framebuffer. 3D in NT6.0 is in some cases faster because it actually mostly runs inside the GPU. Catch my drift? This performance gain is mostly held back by compositing which puts extra burden on the GPU. It is also why games like Crysis runs slower in Vista than it does on XP, while it's designed for Vista and even then it is not crippled (on XP you miss some graphical features and Crysis only runs on one core).

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                      2D on Windows Vista and 7 is just as much accelerated by the GPU as CPU Ray tracing is.
                      GDI is software-only. However WPF as well as GDI+ now sit on top of D3D. Even Java does its 2D drawing using D3D. So basically you say that a legacy API is software-only, not 2D in general.
                      The same goes for Xorg. Yes X11 core drawing is mostly fallback, but XRender is usually accelerated quite well, despite the fact that its 2D.

                      3D in NT6.0 is in some cases faster because it actually mostly runs inside the GPU. Catch my drift?
                      I don't see how "3D" differs between XP and Vista, when talking about D3D or OpenGL.

                      This performance gain is mostly held back by compositing which puts extra burden on the GPU. It is also why games like Crysis runs slower in Vista than it does on XP, while it's designed for Vista and even then it is not crippled (on XP you miss some graphical features and Crysis only runs on one core).
                      As far as I know, compositing is disabled for fullscreen games (would be really stupid anyway).

                      - Clemens
                      Last edited by Linuxhippy; 10-03-2009, 09:33 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Linuxhippy View Post
                        2D is accelerated by the GPU if the driver is capable (currently all major dirvers except fglrx). period.

                        - Clemens
                        so please explain what the setting:

                        Option "Textured2D" "on"

                        means for fglrx

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
                          so please explain what the setting:
                          Option "Textured2D" "on"
                          means for fglrx
                          Well, even without "Textured2D" fglrx does a bit of hw acceleration, Texture2D adds another few operarations and is known to often cause troubles.
                          So if a driver accelerates 10% of operations stable, and 25% if I turn on experimental switches, I don't call it capable
                          Last edited by Linuxhippy; 10-03-2009, 02:32 PM.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X