Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The May 2012 Open-Source Radeon Graphics Showdown

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by log0 View Post
    Interesting. The test log shows: Option "SwapbuffersWait" "0"
    http://openbenchmarking.org/system/1...aked/xorg.conf
    True, but i use much more slower cpu, pcie_gen2=1, vblank_mode=0, "SwapbuffersWait" "0" and have more FPS. Must be a reason.

    Lightsmark 62 vs 128
    Openarena 0.8.8 22 vs 44
    Nexuiz 51 vs 76

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Pontostroy View Post
      True, but i use much more slower cpu, pcie_gen2=1, vblank_mode=0, "SwapbuffersWait" "0" and have more FPS. Must be a reason.

      Lightsmark 62 vs 128
      Openarena 0.8.8 22 vs 44
      Nexuiz 51 vs 76
      Can you test with openbenchmarking and upload link to your results please?

      Comment


      • #18
        Why?

        May be someone know: Why so big difference between propriatiry and opensource drivers? Something was not implemented or only not fully optimized...

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by denisdevelops View Post
          May be someone know: Why so big difference between propriatiry and opensource drivers? Something was not implemented or only not fully optimized...
          The few developers are too busy writing the drivers to even think about optimization. 30%-60% speed is the maximum we can expect I guess.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
            Can you test with openbenchmarking and upload link to your results please?
            http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...BY-GOG20120520

            PTS run from my livecd, so anyone can reproduce the results.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by siride View Post
              xorg.conf isn't and has never been obsolete. You use xorg.conf.d now, but the idea is the same. You only need to include the Device section for the graphics driver. Everything else is autodetected (unless you want to customize those things too and then you can include those in xorg.conf.d).
              This.

              What's obsolete is the everything-including-the-kitchen-sink xorg.conf. Now you create just the section where you're configuring something. So if it's disabling SwapBuffersWait you want, you create the Device section and only that. Also, you now have the flexibility of multiple config files. If it makes it easier to wrap your head around it, think of xorg.conf as xorg.conf.d/99-something.conf


              Originally posted by Pontostroy View Post
              True, but i use much more slower cpu, pcie_gen2=1, vblank_mode=0, "SwapbuffersWait" "0" and have more FPS. Must be a reason.
              Hmm, Unity vs. non-Unity?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Pontostroy View Post
                http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...BY-GOG20120520

                PTS run from my livecd, so anyone can reproduce the results.
                I did a quick diff of xorg.0.log.

                Michael:
                Code:
                (II) Module exa: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
                	compiled for 1.11.3, module version = 2.5.0
                	ABI class: X.Org Video Driver, version 11.0
                (II) RADEON(0): KMS Color Tiling: enabled
                (II) RADEON(0): KMS Pageflipping: enabled
                (II) RADEON(0): SwapBuffers wait for vsync: disabled
                Pontostroy:
                Code:
                (II) Module exa: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
                	compiled for 1.12.1, module version = 2.5.0
                	ABI class: X.Org Video Driver, version 12.0
                (II) RADEON(0): KMS Color Tiling: enabled
                (II) RADEON(0): KMS Pageflipping: enabled
                (II) RADEON(0): SwapBuffers wait for vsync: enabled
                It looks like you are running with SwapBuffers wait enabled and getting better results?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by log0 View Post
                  I did a quick diff of xorg.0.log.

                  It looks like you are running with SwapBuffers wait enabled and getting better results?
                  I turn it on for last test (etqw-demo 1920x1080) with SwapBuffersWait off etqw-demo segfaults after 10-12 sec.

                  http://openbenchmarking.org/system/1...770/Xorg.0.log

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Pontostroy View Post
                    I turn it on for last test (etqw-demo 1920x1080) with SwapBuffersWait off etqw-demo segfaults after 10-12 sec.

                    http://openbenchmarking.org/system/1...770/Xorg.0.log
                    What about the other tests? Do they also crash?

                    Get a backtrace from the segfault and report to xorg/mesa guys.

                    I've got a 4850 available for testing here but never ran mesa from git.

                    Edit: Have you tried the latest git revision or the one Michael has used?
                    Last edited by log0; 05-22-2012, 06:40 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by log0 View Post
                      What about the other tests? Do they also crash?

                      Get a backtrace from the segfault and report to xorg/mesa guys.

                      I've got a 4850 available for testing here but never ran mesa from git.

                      Edit: Have you tried the latest git revision or the one Michael has used?
                      Only etqw-demo has problem, other games and test runs fine.

                      I build livecd with lastes mesa-git, xf86-drivers-git, kernel-git every 14-20 days for over a year (lastes build includes mesa-git 20120518), I tweaked mesa,kernel and drivers for maximum performance and do some tests, and have never seen so lightsmark showed less than 100 FPS, how Michael get 63 FPS, I do not know.
                      The-May-2012-Open-Source-Radeon-Graphics-Showdown radeon-tweaked does not show the the real data, certainly not for the HD 6770.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Pontostroy View Post
                        Only etqw-demo has problem, other games and test runs fine.

                        I build livecd with lastes mesa-git, xf86-drivers-git, kernel-git every 14-20 days for over a year (lastes build includes mesa-git 20120518), I tweaked mesa,kernel and drivers for maximum performance and do some tests, and have never seen so lightsmark showed less than 100 FPS, how Michael get 63 FPS, I do not know.
                        The-May-2012-Open-Source-Radeon-Graphics-Showdown radeon-tweaked does not show the the real data, certainly not for the HD 6770.
                        I'd test with latest mesa and report the segfault.

                        I'll do a run with your live cd. From here? http://www.gearsongallium.com/

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by lakerssuperman View Post
                          On the newer oss drivers that support the vdpau state tracker, vdpauinfo reports that acceleration is in place and works.
                          On my pc with radeon 9550 `mplayer -vo xv` works much faster than `mplayer -vo vdpau`, though my cpu is slow.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by bug! View Post
                            On my pc with radeon 9550 `mplayer -vo xv` works much faster than `mplayer -vo vdpau`, though my cpu is slow.
                            Why are you surprised? It's one extra layer compared to XV, it can never be faster until it accelerates the codec well enough.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by siride View Post
                              xorg.conf isn't and has never been obsolete. You use xorg.conf.d now, but the idea is the same. You only need to include the Device section for the graphics driver. Everything else is autodetected (unless you want to customize those things too and then you can include those in xorg.conf.d).
                              its obsolete because in my system there isn't a /etc/x11/xorg.conf at all and there is also no xorg.conf.d

                              because its all "auto detected"

                              what you really wana say is something like this: you have to open up a file if you want this option.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                                its obsolete because in my system there isn't a /etc/x11/xorg.conf at all and there is also no xorg.conf.d
                                Problem:
                                you want to enable (2D) color tiling -> you need a xorg.conf (or xorg.conf.d)

                                Fact:
                                you don't use something -> it's obsolete

                                Solution:
                                you don't use (2D) color tiling -> it's obsolete
                                (2D) color tiling is obsolete -> you don't need a xorg.conf (or xorg.conf.d)

                                problem solved

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X