Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Radeon 3D Performance: Gallium3D vs. Classic Mesa

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

  • #11
    Great article.

    Originally posted by liangsuilong View Post
    I think you should edit your xorg.conf. If you want to try r300g driver, you should add Driver "r300g" into Section "Device" and remove Driver "radeon" or Driver "radeonhd" in Section "Device".
    Nah, that's not how it's selected.

    When you build Mesa with --enable-gallium-radeon, you'll get a radeong_dri.so library. Symlink or rename it to r300_dri.so and put it in your LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH environment variable. That's it!

    Comment


    • #12
      Hi,
      If you are going to carry out further benchmarks with an updated version of r300g, could you also include some 2D performance tests?
      Especially for older graphic cards, this is more interesting, because they are rarely used for gaming :-)

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Flyser View Post
        Hi,
        If you are going to carry out further benchmarks with an updated version of r300g, could you also include some 2D performance tests?
        Especially for older graphic cards, this is more interesting, because they are rarely used for gaming :-)
        We don't use gallium in any 2D situations so it wouldn't make any difference.

        Dave.

        Comment


        • #14
          I see, but why not? I thought there was an EXA state tracker?
          Do you use gallium for Xv?

          Comment


          • #15
            There have been a few benchmarks now with different drivers that show a complete flat line no matter what the resolution. These have always seemed to be around 30 or 60fps, Michael, are you absolutely positive there is no vsync-ing going on here. If there isn't can we get some comment from the driver devs as to why there is no difference at all despite changing resolutions? What is limiting the frame rate of the Gallium driver at 800x600?

            I'd expect there to be at least some decrease between processing 800x600 and 2560x1600.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by Kazade View Post
              There have been a few benchmarks now with different drivers that show a complete flat line no matter what the resolution. These have always seemed to be around 30 or 60fps, Michael, are you absolutely positive there is no vsync-ing going on here. If there isn't can we get some comment from the driver devs as to why there is no difference at all despite changing resolutions? What is limiting the frame rate of the Gallium driver at 800x600?

              I'd expect there to be at least some decrease between processing 800x600 and 2560x1600.
              This is a good point, the gallium driver especially seems to only be working at factors of 120 fps (ie 120/60/30/24).

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by Kazade View Post
                There have been a few benchmarks now with different drivers that show a complete flat line no matter what the resolution. These have always seemed to be around 30 or 60fps, Michael, are you absolutely positive there is no vsync-ing going on here. If there isn't can we get some comment from the driver devs as to why there is no difference at all despite changing resolutions? What is limiting the frame rate of the Gallium driver at 800x600?

                I'd expect there to be at least some decrease between processing 800x600 and 2560x1600.
                The lack of difference right now seems to be due to overhead with too many kernel calls being made, according to Corbin. But this might be fixed in the most recent Git commits.
                Michael Larabel
                http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Michael View Post
                  The lack of difference right now seems to be due to overhead with too many kernel calls being made, according to Corbin. But this might be fixed in the most recent Git commits.
                  Would be nice to test that .... if you fix the CPU clocks on different levels.
                  It should scale down almost linear if what you say is true.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Are Doom 3 and friends not playable with r300g, or why the focus on only id Tech 3 games?

                    (Doom 3 is listed as "gold" on the RadeonProgram page, but maybe that's for the classic driver only?)

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by whizse View Post
                      Are Doom 3 and friends not playable with r300g, or why the focus on only id Tech 3 games?

                      (Doom 3 is listed as "gold" on the RadeonProgram page, but maybe that's for the classic driver only?)
                      Michael would have to spend money though.

                      Edit: Oh, there is a demo at least.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X