Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gallium3D R600 Shader Variant Caching

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by Erbureth View Post
    Even today's games have such complex scenes. (eg. Portal is still borderline playable on minimal settings on my rv620)
    you don't unterstand my words if a today game do have such a complex scene then you benchmark with exactly THIS scene then 100FPS is all you need and on my monitor 60fps.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
      you don't unterstand my words if a today game do have such a complex scene then you benchmark with exactly THIS scene then 100FPS is all you need and on my monitor 60fps.
      Thanks for proving my point.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Erbureth View Post
        Thanks for proving my point.
        LOL its my point? i proved you that there is no need for anything more than 60fps (in the most complex scene) in today games.

        but you claim otherwise you claimed that you need 500fps.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
          LOL its my point? i proved you that there is no need for anything more than 60fps (in the most complex scene) in today games.

          but you claim otherwise you claimed that you need 500fps.
          No, I claimed there is not enough speed yet. FPS is far lower than 60

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by Erbureth View Post
            No, I claimed there is not enough speed yet. FPS is far lower than 60
            LOL... and again you don't understand me the 60FPS is the best case you ever can "USE"

            the game also runs well on 30FPS because then you only double every frame to get the 60FPS

            every Movie does this because the movie only do have: "24fps-30fps"

            and the radeon driver already hit the magic 30fps number with the new compiler and shader caching feature.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
              LOL... and again you don't understand me the 60FPS is the best case you ever can "USE"

              the game also runs well on 30FPS because then you only double every frame to get the 60FPS

              every Movie does this because the movie only do have: "24fps-30fps"

              and the radeon driver already hit the magic 30fps number with the new compiler and shader caching feature.
              Maybe I haven't expressed myself clearly. By "far lower" I meant 5-10 fps during normal scenes, 2 fps during effects. I have yet to test the shader caching, however there are more patches I am waiting for - HiZ, HiS etc... And when Portal can be played on decent fps rates (30 during normal gameplay, 10 during some special effects) with decent settings (bigger resolution than 720x???, actually some shaders turned on, and portal depth 2), then you can say we have (some) speed.

              OTOH, stability is very good already.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by Erbureth View Post
                Maybe I haven't expressed myself clearly. By "far lower" I meant 5-10 fps during normal scenes, 2 fps during effects. I have yet to test the shader caching, however there are more patches I am waiting for - HiZ, HiS etc... And when Portal can be played on decent fps rates (30 during normal gameplay, 10 during some special effects) with decent settings (bigger resolution than 720x???, actually some shaders turned on, and portal depth 2), then you can say we have (some) speed.

                OTOH, stability is very good already.
                yes now you hit the point. if the FPS is lower than 30FPS you can't play the game.

                right now with kernel 3.5 and the oibaf ppa i can play my games over the magic 30fps...

                maybe you should update your driver and stuff?

                Comment


                • #18
                  I think the issue here is midrange vs entry level hardware.

                  Q's card (RV740 IIRC) has ~2x the ROP throughput, ~4x the memory bandwidth and ~8x the shader throughput of Erbureth's RV620.
                  Last edited by bridgman; 06-10-2012, 11:34 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                    I think the issue here is that Q's card (RV740 IIRC) has >2x the ROP/memory throughput and nearly 8x the shader throughput of Erbureth's RV620.
                    hi ... yes a "Radeon HD 3470" is so "slow" compared to my Radeon HD 4770 ...

                    but maybe he understand that he need a "Faster" card ?

                    i for myself would never buy "Low-end" hardware for a open-source driver.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                      hi ... yes a "Radeon HD 3470" is so "slow" compared to my Radeon HD 4770 ...

                      but maybe he understand that he need a "Faster" card ?

                      i for myself would never buy "Low-end" hardware for a open-source driver.
                      Priorities. I am not a gamer who needs top-level hardware and I believe my card is capable enough to render the games I play with acceptable quality at playable framerate. It is the driver, that is still behind Catalyst in terms of performance and cannot utilize the hw at full power. Even you would benefit from such improvements as you woudn't need to buy more powerful HW so often.

                      That said, I still prefer open-source driver to Catalyst because it is much more stable, usable with my workflow and better supported in my distribution.

                      Upgrade is out of the question, as I will not be buying a new laptop in the forseeable future.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X