Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Open-Source ATI R600/700 Mesa 3D Performance

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

  • #31
    There is definitely something going on with that HD 2600pro.

    It's a wiled guess in the pitch black dark, but could it be that:
    There is some bug in the microcode/firmware/ATI BIOS thing?
    It's a faulty card (smack me in the face for being so terribly newbisch)?
    There is a workaround for some silicon bug in the 'blob' drivers?
    There was something popping up in the background while testing this card?
    It is a card that is not manufactured according to the official ATI/AMD blueprints (maybe I am just a n00b and this doesn't apply for the GPU at all)?

    One would assume that what Bridgman already pointed out; it's not the HD 2600PRO because the results are so a-logical.

    Comment


    • #32
      I think the quick answer is "we don't know"

      I suspect it's something funny in the software environment rather than GPU/card/microcode etc... though.

      Comment


      • #33
        I would be worried if you said anything else without evidence to back it up...

        That said, I tend to assume strange glitches are somewhere in the software environment on my systems, and the graphics stack being first suspect

        Comment


        • #34
          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.
          Nice one. This gives place for a lot of improvement as it looks. (Well, I cant test it myself, my hd 5650 mobility is bound to the catalyst, but honestly i have no major problems with 2d/3d performance of the 10.1 for my card.)

          Comment


          • #35
            Why all the conspiracy theory? Occam's razor says the HD2600 is just a crappy card..

            Comment


            • #36
              The 2600 and 3650 are very similar, other than clocks, fab process, and DX10.1 support in the 3650. UVD might be different as well, but that wouldn't affect these tests.

              With the exception of clock speeds, the two GPUs should give very similar results on these tests.

              Comment


              • #37
                Think the 2600 was running hot maybe?
                I know superior cooling would make a difference on my 4850 ast it reaches 100degrees celcius and downclocks itself.

                EDIT: ***110 degrees

                Comment


                • #38
                  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.


                  Thats what i was looking for, but what about video playback, especially HD videos?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    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, indeed. It would be better to integrate these graphs over time to get the time average, and simply display a bar graph of the averages.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by perpetualrabbit View Post
                      Yes, indeed. It would be better to integrate these graphs over time to get the time average, and simply display a bar graph of the averages.
                      Or both, because otherwise you'd lose info.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        A question to Michael or whoever else cares to provide insight:

                        As a non-gamer, I wonder why the framerate in games is so important. The human eye perceives pictures as fluid motion when more than about 16 to 24 frames per second. So half the refresh rate of a TFT screen (usually 60Hz), at 30Hz should be more than enough. Or maximally 60Hz when doing 3D, so 30 Hz for each eye.
                        Why is it not always done that way?
                        Why not use the CPU and GPU cycles for improving the picture quality instead of more frames per second?
                        Also, is there a way to fix the framerate in games to a certain amount (say 30Hz) and do benchmarking based on (lesser is better) CPU and GPU load instead?

                        I'm really puzzled by this...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          So actually I'm asking why the framerate in games (and GUI's like compiz, and movies) is not simply locked to the vertical refresh of the screen? Even half of it would be enough. Or the whole 60Hz if you need to independant viewpoints for 3D?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Actually you can lock the framerate with the sync to vblank option, supported either at the software or driver level. While in theory 30 fps are enough, I've seen quite some games that become really playable only at 60 fps or more. The rest is only for gamers fun.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              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.
                              Mmm, I just ran the WoP on my rig, I get relatively less performance than you:
                              http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...950-8781-11434

                              In your test fglrx is 3.6 times faster, and in mine 4.8 - but this is at different resolutions (yours is 1680 x 1050 and mine 1920 x 1080). We also have different software stacks (you seem to be running latest Mesa on a 2009 distro?).

                              Anyways, thanks for sharing, roughly speaking, 3D performance since to vary between a factor 2 and a factor 5 in 3D these days.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by mendieta View Post
                                Mmm, I just ran the WoP on my rig, I get relatively less performance than you:
                                http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...950-8781-11434

                                In your test fglrx is 3.6 times faster, and in mine 4.8 - but this is at different resolutions (yours is 1680 x 1050 and mine 1920 x 1080). We also have different software stacks (you seem to be running latest Mesa on a 2009 distro?).

                                Anyways, thanks for sharing, roughly speaking, 3D performance since to vary between a factor 2 and a factor 5 in 3D these days.
                                Interestingly enough, using the vanilla 2.6.33rc6 I get a 25% speedup (4.8 -> 3.9)
                                http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...03-12011-24387

                                Even more interesting, there is a regression in rc7: no 3D acceleration at all!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X