Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 3.5 Can Massively Boost AMD Radeon Graphics

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by agd5f View Post
    The default profile uses the clocks that are set by the vbios at boot; i.e., the clocks that are set when you boot the computer before the OS loads. As Bridgman noted, on some boards they are higher, on others they are lower. Whether or not they are the same as the high clocks varies from board to board. Nouveau does the same thing. The only difference is that nvidia tends to set the boot up clocks lower.
    Thank you for your response... Now I'm a bit more clarified about the power profiles... But I'd like to have dynpm or a lower power consuption profile as a default for FOSS ATI drivers... without having to do "geeky" things, OC... (for me it's not a big deal, but for some "average Joe" Linux users...)

    @darkbasic: Well, sometimes the time your electronics survive also depends from the "luck" you've with the components you bought. I also have a P4 for about 10y (OC from 2.8GHz to 3.2Ghz) and it's still working (using that PC right now btw ). Simultaneosly, I had a Radeon 9600 that only worked for 3y (also overclocked it with ATI Tool in the past )... But it's a fact that having your electronic components always working at maximum specs decreases their lifetime... And that's not a stupid thing as you're stating, is "common sense" in electronics...

    @energyman: I know about some people that suffered with the "connectorgate" scandal... I even advised them to buy ATI next time (most of that people were using Windows instead of Linux...). But I also have some friends that use nVidia for a long time and never had problems... Now, I'm trying it for the first time (look at the "Goodbye ATI thread")... The "bumpgate scandal", if you're telling about the rebadging of nVidia cards, can also be applied to recent ATI card releases (except for the >77xx (aka GCN) series).

    Cheers

    p.s.: Still using a rv730 (4650AGP) card...
    Last edited by evolution; 06-07-2012, 09:43 PM. Reason: Missing Info

    Comment


    • #42
      Great! But how comparable is it with catalyst drivers?

      Originally posted by e8hffff View Post
      All the bad news about AMD Radeons, and now comes the strawberries and cream.
      Good to know, but I'm still skeptic about the OSS drivers performance when compared with catalyst drivers. Would somebody please tell me how it'll stand in performance in comparison to the catalyst drivers? Also please somebody tell does it improves ATI HD 6250 (AMD C-50 APU) performance? If so, how much?


      Note: Only yesterday I tried the kernel 3.4 with latest mesa stack. KMS was ok. But the performance (3d and hd video playback) was so damn bad that I wondered why do they release such bad, inefficient and feature-incomplete code at all.
      Last edited by manmath; 06-08-2012, 01:09 AM.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by manmath View Post
        Good to know, but I'm still skeptic about the OSS drivers performance when compared with catalyst drivers. Would somebody please tell me how it'll stand in performance in comparison to the catalyst drivers? Also please somebody tell does it improves ATI HD 6250 (AMD C-50 APU) performance? If so, how much?
        Note: Only yesterday I tried the kernel 3.4 with latest mesa stack. KMS was ok. But the performance (3d and hd video playback) was so damn bad that I wondered why do they release such bad, inefficient and feature-incomplete code at all.
        you use a APU right? then your test is invalid because you don't do measure the performance you only do measure the bad and incomplete power-management because the default clock speed on AMD APUs are "LOW" because these APUs need power-management to set the right clock speed.
        also you used the wrong kernel 3,5 is the one with the biggest speed improvements.

        "Would somebody please tell me how it'll stand in performance in comparison to the catalyst drivers?"

        you get 60-80% of the speed if you use a REAL GPU like my hd4770 and not a "APU-FAKE"

        if you use a APU the slow-defaults hit you and you get 10-20% of the speed.

        Comment


        • #44
          No, it's not a crappy gpu.

          Qaridarium, thanks for posting the reply. But here are a few points.

          #1. it's not an APU-Fake. On the same device Windows 7 handles 3d works and hd 1080p quite well. But linux with open source graphics simply fails to do that. I tried with catalyst, it works way better than the open source graphics, but it's too complicated in the sense i had to install catalyst drivers, vaapi-wrapper and then some workarounds in the media players. I thought open source graphics will be an easy way.
          #2. Did you mean I'll get 10-20% speed boost if I used open source graphics on top of kernel 3.5 and proper xorg drivers? If it's so then it's very unfortunate to call it any improvement at all. Cos at present open source drivers on this c-50 apu don't offer even 10-20% performance of the catalyst drivers.

          Just one puzzle, why does AMD releases such bad/shoddy open source drivers that are no where stand close to the proprietary ones.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by manmath View Post
            Qaridarium, thanks for posting the reply. But here are a few points.

            #1. it's not an APU-Fake. On the same device Windows 7 handles 3d works and hd 1080p quite well.
            then why you don't use Windows7 on your "WINDOWS/Closed-Source-only" hardware?
            its a APU-FAKE if you use "Linux" because if you use a intel HD4000 graphic based INTEL-APU you get a much better "DEFAULT" result because the intel hardware is not "WINDOWS-ONLY/Closed-Source only"!
            AMD fail on your hardware on (Opensource) Linux thats the real point.

            Originally posted by manmath View Post
            But linux with open source graphics simply fails to do that.
            o well in other words AMD FAIL to do Opensource drivers for there APU-Hardware. but i know the name who is responsible for this: "Bridgman"

            Bridgman ruin AMD's APU strategy.


            Originally posted by manmath View Post
            I tried with catalyst, it works way better than the open source graphics, but it's too complicated in the sense i had to install catalyst drivers, vaapi-wrapper and then some workarounds in the media players.
            in other words AMD fail Double time on your hardware on linux with the closed source crap to!

            wen Double fail FAILS:



            Originally posted by manmath View Post
            I thought open source graphics will be an easy way.
            you thought? don't mess with Bridgman he will always beat you LOL !



            LOL bridgman beat you so hard LOL


            Originally posted by manmath View Post
            #2. Did you mean I'll get 10-20% speed boost if I used open source graphics on top of kernel 3.5 and proper xorg drivers?
            no. the defaults are broken you have to reclock the GPU on your APU to get the speed. if you clock it higher you get 50-60% of the speed.

            Originally posted by manmath View Post
            If it's so then it's very unfortunate to call it any improvement at all. Cos at present open source drivers on this c-50 apu don't offer even 10-20% performance of the catalyst drivers.
            don't worry AMD got double damage rune on you



            in other words you are fucked:



            Originally posted by manmath View Post
            Just one puzzle, why does AMD releases such bad/shoddy open source drivers that are no where stand close to the proprietary ones.
            don'T worry this is just market-share politics from managers like "Bridgman"

            you get what your market-share well-deserved

            the market fucks you:

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
              then why you don't use Windows7 on your "WINDOWS/Closed-Source-only" hardware?
              its a APU-FAKE if you use "Linux" because if you use a intel HD4000 graphic based INTEL-APU you get a much better "DEFAULT" result because the intel hardware is not "WINDOWS-ONLY/Closed-Source only"!
              AMD fail on your hardware on (Opensource) Linux thats the real point.

              o well in other words AMD FAIL to do Opensource drivers for there APU-Hardware.
              Well, Intel's competing product to the AMD C-Series iGPU is not the HD4000. It's the non working, IP-encumbered PowerVR SGX5 (AKA Intel GMA36xx). This abomination fits your description of a Fake-APU much more than anything AMD has ever released, at least when it comes to Open-Source Linux support.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                then why you don't use Windows7 on your "WINDOWS/Closed-Source-only" hardware?

                As you suggested I think it's better for me to stick to Win7 on the crappy c-50 APU. And i'm really pleased with linux performance on Intel HD 3000 on my H61 mobo + SB Core i3 built.
                Of course, I'll keep visiting phoronix in the hope that AMD will someday release mature open source drivers as Intel does. Just a hope!

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by manmath View Post
                  As you suggested I think it's better for me to stick to Win7 on the crappy c-50 APU. And i'm really pleased with linux performance on Intel HD 3000 on my H61 mobo + SB Core i3 built.
                  Of course, I'll keep visiting phoronix in the hope that AMD will someday release mature open source drivers as Intel does. Just a hope!
                  AMD C-50 is a perfect little chip for a netbook. I love it and it uses much less resources than e.g. Intel-Atom if playing a video.

                  I made some benchmarks here a while ago:
                  http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...AR-AMDC50PTS59

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by disi View Post
                    AMD C-50 is a perfect little chip for a netbook.
                    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...AR-AMDC50PTS59
                    Very very right. I've the similar experience on Windows 7. But on linux it's too much problematic. That's why I'm running only Win7 on it, and built a Linux machine with Intel h61 mobo and SB Core i3 processor, for my office needs.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by ceage View Post
                      Well, Intel's competing product to the AMD C-Series iGPU is not the HD4000. It's the non working, IP-encumbered PowerVR SGX5 (AKA Intel GMA36xx). This abomination fits your description of a Fake-APU much more than anything AMD has ever released, at least when it comes to Open-Source Linux support.
                      LOL FAIL intel FAIL to...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X