Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

r300g: Is it really accelerated?

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

  • #16
    Beiruty, if you make a compeling argument about why r300g+R520 should be fast in Lightsmark, we may have a look at what's slow there and fix it. But see if fglrx is faster first.

    Also I had a discussion with the author of Lightsmark (he's from the same country as me, and presented some alpha version of Lightsmark for a local game development community here) a few years ago and IIRC indirect lighting (i.e. radiosity) in his benchmark was computed on the CPU, while direct lighting and shadows were computed on the GPU, so GPU performance might not matter that much if you're CPU-limited.

    Comment


    • #17
      Marek,

      Thanks a lot for your feedback. I do not have flgrx to run at this time. I installed a new kernel .36 RC6 and now the score is at 6.93

      http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...0174-28324-504

      I understand if the the bench is CPU limitied. My CPU is 2.4 Ghz and bit old too.


      I will try other tests.

      Comment


      • #18
        Since the there is lightmark 2008 for windows. I dual boot and run it under xp.

        Comment


        • #19
          I douwnloaded and installed lightsmark 2008 V2 on winxp. It run and it sarted great between 30 fps and 60 fps with Audio Music. However, less than a minute screen corruption started showing and crashed the video card.

          I guess AMD OpenGL on winxp are not that great either! But I saw amazing fps!

          Comment


          • #20
            Open drivers bite the dust when compared to closed ones, it's nothing new...
            ## VGA ##
            AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
            Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

            Comment


            • #21
              To your reference, this is my results with fglrx 10.10 beta in Ubuntu maverick.

              Code:
              Lightsmark:
                  lightsmark [Resolution: 1920 x 1080]
                  Test Run 1 of 1
                  Expected Trial Run Count: 3
                      Started Run 1 @ 15:47:48
                      Started Run 2 @ 15:49:52
                      Started Run 3 @ 15:51:54
              
                  Test Results:
                      54.92
                      55.48
                      54.99
              
                  Average: 55.13 Frames Per Second
              This was benchmarked on a C2D 2.5 GHz, with HD4650.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by tball View Post
                To your reference, this is my results with fglrx 10.10 beta in Ubuntu maverick.

                Code:
                Lightsmark:
                    lightsmark [Resolution: 1920 x 1080]
                    Test Run 1 of 1
                    Expected Trial Run Count: 3
                        Started Run 1 @ 15:47:48
                        Started Run 2 @ 15:49:52
                        Started Run 3 @ 15:51:54
                
                    Test Results:
                        54.92
                        55.48
                        54.99
                
                    Average: 55.13 Frames Per Second
                This was benchmarked on a C2D 2.5 GHz, with HD4650.

                If you have access to win7, can you try it under win7?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Beiruty View Post
                  If you have access to win7, can you try it under win7?
                  I practically never use windows 7, but here are the benchmark result:
                  173.9 fps, while playing an audio file.

                  I didn't expect that result.
                  That is even with a much older catalyst version.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    3X between Win OpenGL and Mesa3D (gallium3D). A lot of Performance optimization is needed. Nonetheless, all Open Software effort is greatly appreciated.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Beiruty View Post
                      3X between Win OpenGL and Mesa3D (gallium3D). A lot of Performance optimization is needed. Nonetheless, all Open Software effort is greatly appreciated.
                      No there is over 3 times the performance of the proprietary windows opengl implementation against the proprietary opengl linux implementation. I didn't use the oss driver in linux, but fglrx.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        here is lightsnark with Catalyst 10.04? can we seen Gallium3D Vs ATI benches?

                        http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...d_hd4290&num=3

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I thought this thread was about R300-R500.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by marek View Post
                            I thought this thread was about R300-R500.
                            Sorry, you are correct. Can we see it for R500?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by marek View Post
                              I thought this thread was about R300-R500.

                              Sorry, you are correct. Can we see it for R500? However, that means we need to compare Cat 9.3 to the latest r300g.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Beiruty View Post
                                I douwnloaded and installed lightsmark 2008 V2 on winxp. It run and it sarted great between 30 fps and 60 fps with Audio Music. However, less than a minute screen corruption started showing and crashed the video card.

                                I guess AMD OpenGL on winxp are not that great either! But I saw amazing fps!
                                In all honesty, that sounds a lot less like a driver problem and a lot more like malfunctioning hardware. Actually seeing the corruption in question might help narrow it down a bit more, though.

                                I regularly run very intensive OpenGL apps in windows on my ATI card with no issues. While it's certainly possible your benchmark app hits some particular driver path that isn't as stable as what my apps hit, the "runs fine for a bit, gets corrupted looking, crashes" is almost the textbook prime symptom of an over-heating GPU.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X