Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Open-Source ATI R600/700 Mesa 3D Performance

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by bolzerrr View Post
    Interesting would be to compare those Result with fglrx results
    I second that. See my post just above, I did run one test of that kind, and it looks to me that we will have to wait for the Q4 2010 distributions to have reasonable 3D performance. Q2 distributions will have excellent 2D and some 3D for basic gaming I think. This is consistent with what I am hearing from the gurus here. But it would be nice to quantify "how much slower" it'll be to run the Open Source stack.

    Oh, and for taht comparison, it would be nice to add 2D, too.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by misiu_mp View Post
      You can obviously see that tremoulus is bottlenecked somewhere else than the graphics performance. The framerates stay the same on most resolutions for most of the cards.
      The results arent much dependent on the performance of the graphics card alone (all 48xx lines are virtually identical).
      This is so obvious, Mike should have commented on this, instead of just saying "Tremoulus is more demanding". Something else is afoot there.
      Maybe the bottleneck is the drivers themselves. This seems much more plausible.

      Originally posted by colo View Post
      Am I the only one who thinks the graphing of the results is absolutely abhorrent? To get any valuable information out of the mess that is, for example, the GL and XV video performance graphs, they should have been at least two times their size. It'd also be nice to have access to the numeric data in tabular form as an option. More often than not, I'd like to compare numbers instead of trying hard to figure out which shade of $colour represents which cardů
      Yes, Phoronix is known for its awful graphs.

      Comment


      • #18
        It depends what you are interested in

        Originally posted by mendieta View Post
        Dou you think you can run some tests for just one given card, comparing performance with the Open Source stack against the Catalyst driver?
        I have a HD4670 in a laptop/docking station, and a HD4890, Radeon 9550, Radeon 9200 and Radeon 7000 in other desktop machines. The laptop/docking station is running F10 with fglrx 9.11, and is the only machine capable of running World of Warcraft these days. However, when it comes to 2D desktop performance, all my desktop machines (which are running F12) dance rings around the laptop while laughing hysterically.

        Actually, I think even my old Matrox G400 MAX beats my HD4670's performance under fglrx, because fglrx is targeted at the older X servers that ship with "Enterprise" distributions. I don't think it's valid to claim that fglrx is compatible with non-Enterprise distros any more. It's certainly a sick joke with on Fedora 10, with OpenGL as its only semi-redeeming feature.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by mattst88 View Post
          Yes, Phoronix is known for its awful graphs.

          That will change by PTS3 when we will be known for delivering the best graphs
          Michael Larabel
          http://www.michaellarabel.com/

          Comment


          • #20
            Why no comparison with fglrx? When 2d performance of the open source drivers are benched by Phoronix (an area in which the open source driver performs quite good compared to fglrx) the results are always compared with fglrx.

            Now you are measuring 3d performance, which open source won't win from fglrx and you leave fglrx out. It would be nice to see how far off the open source driver stack is from the proprietary driver.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by mendieta View Post
              Michael,

              Here is my own test (I wonder if the factor 5 in 3D performance is representative):
              http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...483-2293-23385
              Mesa is known to be slowest in race games (so factor 5 IS representive there), but in quake 3 engine based games it can gain 60% or more in the best case (here and there with some not yet accelerated/optimised features disabled) average performance compared to fglrx.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by dungeon View Post
                Mesa is known to be slowest in race games (so factor 5 IS representive there), but in quake 3 engine based games it can gain 60% or more in the best case (here and there with some not yet accelerated/optimised features disabled) average performance compared to fglrx.
                Ah, that makes sense! I have WoP installed and it ran very nicely with the Open Source stack. I haven't tried to benchmark it because it is ahuge slow download with the PTS. I may try it overnight. Thanks a lot for the insight! (and I certainly hope Mesa improves in that front )

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by colo View Post
                  Am I the only one who thinks the graphing of the results is absolutely abhorrent? To get any valuable information out of the mess that is, for example, the GL and XV video performance graphs, they should have been at least two times their size. It'd also be nice to have access to the numeric data in tabular form as an option. More often than not, I'd like to compare numbers instead of trying hard to figure out which shade of $colour represents which cardů
                  There are still numbers on the top of the pictures, which show Average, Peak and Low frame rates.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Here is an old radeon vs. fglrx test I did. All those games a rather playable. Would like to know what you did to get Tremulous running though; it's a slide show even under masa 7.8, and tends to crash.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by TeoLinuX View Post
                      I thought that my HD3650 would have been nearer to the HD3850... it's almost half the performance!
                      It's quite a low level rather than a mid-range! (at its times I mean... nowadays it ain't even worth considering). ok, I bought it as a low budget transition card, but still...
                      The 3650 should be about half the performance - it processes 8 pixels per clock vs 16 for the 3850, and does 120 shader ops per clock vs 320 for the 3850. Memory bandwidth is also about half.

                      The 3650 vs 3850 numbers seemed about right given the hardware differences.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Wyatt View Post
                        Wait, you don't like some of the results so you won't show them? What the heck!

                        It would be nice to know if things have failed miserably or are not sufficiently different to even see a difference, too, you know: you even already have all the data.
                        Agreed!

                        Not showing the "bad" results boggles my mind.

                        You give the impression that everything at least works which is simply is not true.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Melcar View Post
                          Here is an old radeon vs. fglrx test I did. All those games a rather playable. Would like to know what you did to get Tremulous running though; it's a slide show even under masa 7.8, and tends to crash.

                          Never mind. Got it to work by disabling ST3C compression on driconf.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by colo View Post
                            Am I the only one who thinks the graphing of the results is absolutely abhorrent?
                            When there are many parallel lines like in this graph, I would very much appreciate to have the text associated with each color box in the legend above the graph to also appear as a tag somewhere along each line. Being half color blind does not make for quick and easy identification of which line represent which card...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Agree on the graphs not been that hot. Having all those thin colored lines close together is hard on the eyes.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by linuxjacques View Post
                                Not showing the "bad" results boggles my mind. You give the impression that everything at least works which is simply is not true.
                                Come on, don't exaggerate, this is just a "friendly shootout" trying to give an idea of what things are like, not a scientific experiment.

                                They probably just didn't want to spend time on testing and measuring things that would be so bad as to be useless to just about everybody.

                                It's not as if they hid the fact.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X