Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Radeon Gallium3D: A Half-Decade Behind Catalyst?

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

  • #41
    Why not run the benchmarks in a separate xserver instance? There are tutorials/scripts all over the net showing how to do it.

    Comment


    • #42
      Marek can you please test kde without desktop effects? Thanks
      ## VGA ##
      AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
      Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by marek View Post
        Hi, I have just tried a simple glxgears test with all the desktop environments I have. I have to say that the results are quite astonishing. It proves that the testing methodology of the article is flawed and the presented results are unfair to say the least. Now the comparison (rounded to tens):

        Unity - 4260 FPS
        Unity 2D - 3540 FPS
        KDE - 3830 FPS
        Gnome 2 - 6000 FPS
        Xfce - 6160 FPS

        The article is comparing Catalyst and R300g and at the same time it's comparing Unity and Gnome 2 (why?). We know from the article that Catalyst+Gnome2 is faster than R300g+Unity. We can say for sure that Catalyst is likely faster than R300g in most or all tests, but we already know that from previous benchmarks. We also know that Gnome 2 is faster than Unity. What the article doesn't show is how much exactly Catalyst is faster than R300g, because it doesn't compare the two in the same desktop environment.

        Michael, next time you make an article, please do it at least right.
        glxgears should not used as a benchmark but yes you are right michael compare different stuff.

        he should test only x+game without gnome or kde.

        KDE also improve a lot if you don't use the catalyst with kde4,8 you get a much faster openGL2 rendering. with the newest QT its also much faster.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by marek View Post
          Michael, next time you make an article, please do it at least right.
          Unfortunately, better articles are not economically viable at this point.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
            Unfortunately, better articles are not economically viable at this point.
            why? i can not imagine any criteria.

            Comment


            • #46
              http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...829#post246829

              Comment


              • #47
                in fact you are wrong because: michael drive the phoronix forum do FIX that!

                now we all know the test is invalid only because of the Phoronix-forum.

                in fact if someone read the article without reading the forum he is just Stupid.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                  in fact you are wrong because: michael drive the phoronix forum do FIX that!

                  now we all know the test is invalid only because of the Phoronix-forum.

                  in fact if someone read the article without reading the forum he is just Stupid.
                  Hm, so now you're saying that article quality doesn't matter, since the nice forum-dwelling volunteers will fix any mistakes anyway? Well, maybe it doesn't matter to you since you seem to have enough time to waste on forums, but I'd expect someone who wants his articles taken seriously to 1) make sure they are correct before publishing, and 2) if notified of errors, to correct them or at least point them out in the article. Why would you expect a reader to read through potentially pages of comments to find out if an article is actually correct, and how would they know which forum poster is right?

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
                    Hm, so now you're saying that article quality doesn't matter, since the nice forum-dwelling volunteers will fix any mistakes anyway? Well, maybe it doesn't matter to you since you seem to have enough time to waste on forums, but I'd expect someone who wants his articles taken seriously to 1) make sure they are correct before publishing, and 2) if notified of errors, to correct them or at least point them out in the article. Why would you expect a reader to read through potentially pages of comments to find out if an article is actually correct, and how would they know which forum poster is right?
                    the truthfulness is not "nice" if a reader do not have time for the truth then he is already lost.
                    but in fact we should push the community "Truth" into the main articles.
                    maybe a second article for every article with corrections.
                    however i do have the time for the truth this means i read the forums to read stuff from people like you.
                    sometimes i do it the other way around then i only read the forums and don't read the articles.

                    yes we life in a poor world without time for truth.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                      KDE also improve a lot if you don't use the catalyst with kde4,8 you get a much faster openGL2 rendering. with the newest QT its also much faster.
                      It's enough to make tests with suspend composition option enabled.

                      ++++++

                      It's strange Phoronix does the same mistakes every time. It was explained many times to make meaningful benchmarks you have to use the same DE.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X