Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RadeonSI GLAMOR 2D Performance vs. Catalyst

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by tomtomme View Post
    so why then are the differences so big?
    I'm not sure, but it won't stop me from hypothesizing

    Michael's system is an APU while Pontostroy's using a dedicated GPU. The APU has a core clock of 720MHz and the RAM is DDR3 clocked at 2133MHz. The APU is also sharing the 5MB of L2 cache. The 7790 has a core clock 1050MHz and uses 2GB of dedicated DDR5 memory clocked at 1500MHz (effective clock of 6400Mhz).

    The CPU and GPU cores on the APU are sharing the thermal head room, though I don't think the CPU is using much of it during these benchmarks. More benchmarks would be needed to see if it is a hardware limitation or software regression.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Pontostroy View Post
      http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...SO-1401178PL34

      suse 13.1 kde+ radeon 7790+ gtk2-oxygen
      Ubuntu 13.10 stock + lowly Pentium G840 (Sandy Bridge HD Graphics): http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...SO-1401184SO59

      Spoiler alert: the Pentium wins 12 out of 25 tests and only comes out last in 1.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Veerappan View Post
        ...but I haven't seen anything for the circles test yet.
        Serious question -- other than 2D benchmarks, are circles actually used any more ?

        Comment


        • #19
          You use SNA, intel+glamor up to 100 times slower than intel+sna
          http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...SO-1401199SO68

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Pontostroy View Post
            You use SNA, intel+glamor up to 100 times slower than intel+sna
            http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...SO-1401199SO68
            One, those aren't that bad in most cases. Two, I wonder if an Intel Pentium APU would outperform a glamor top end AMD card due to the performance gap.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Pontostroy View Post
              You use SNA, intel+glamor up to 100 times slower than intel+sna
              http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...SO-1401199SO68
              I'm no expert but that looks more like one totally unoptimized operation.

              Anyway, sna has been extremly fine tuned for a long time now. Just look at only the amount of work they put into it: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/dri...?qt=grep&q=sna or some of the insane optimisations: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/dri...t=grep&q=optim

              Glamor being much younger probably hasn't seen that much optimization.

              Comment


              • #22
                Every time I read micro-optimize I want to hug my cpu more.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Spittie View Post
                  He's using those repository (created by him!) to get the latest mesa/llvm from git, and the latest kernel rc.
                  http://download.opensuse.org/reposit...openSUSE_13.1/
                  http://download.opensuse.org/reposit...openSUSE_13.1/
                  Yeap. I use it when I need to try the absolute latest, too. It's like the openSUSE equivalent for oibaf PPA.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by ChrisXY View Post
                    Glamor being much younger probably hasn't seen that much optimization.
                    Actually, Glamor's first commit is from November 2011, and SNA's is April 2011, so not much head-start:

                    Glamor: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/dri...0bce3eea834620
                    SNA: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/dri...fa2c5626adf4cb

                    The difference is that Chris Wilson did a ton of work on improving SNA, while Glamor didn't see nearly as much work.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      radeon exa vs glamor (r600, radeonsi)
                      http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...SO-1401219SO64

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Pontostroy View Post
                        radeon exa vs glamor (r600, radeonsi)
                        http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...SO-1401219SO64
                        Thanks a bunch for testing and posting!

                        How did you build the environment for this?

                        Summed it up a bit below. All are FPS - more better.

                        Qgears2/OpenGL/text
                        7790 gla - 305.27
                        6770 gla - 307.52
                        6770 exa - 316.25

                        Qgears2/CPU Rast/text
                        7790 gla - 149.41
                        6770 gla - 178.45
                        6770 exa - 184.58

                        Qgears2/Xrender/text
                        7790 gla - 156.05
                        6770 gla - 186.97
                        6770 exa - 193.60


                        Qgears2/OpenGL/Gears
                        7790 gla - 527.56
                        6770 gla - 581.72
                        6770 exa - 602.21

                        Qgears2/CPU Rast/Gears
                        7790 gla - 136.99
                        6770 gla - 159.83
                        6770 exa - 165.06

                        Qgears2/Xrender/Gears
                        7790 gla - 141.12
                        6770 gla - 165.72
                        6770 exa - 170.65


                        Qgears2/OpenGL/Image Scaling
                        7790 gla - 4370.40
                        6770 gla - 4929.05
                        6770 exa - 6496.89

                        Qgears2/CPU Rast/Image Scaling
                        7790 gla - 265.94
                        6770 gla - 354.06
                        6770 exa - 379.87

                        Qgears2/Xrender/Image Scaling
                        7790 gla - 281.58
                        6770 gla - 373.39
                        6770 exa - 400.17

                        I skipped the x11perf tests.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          ALL IN ONE
                          sna,glamor,exa
                          http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...99SO68&compare

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            So, judged from X11perf vs Qgears - we don't have bad performance due to driver problems,
                            but we have bad performance due to Xorg stack unable to use 3D-based/OpenGL-based hardware efficiently, preferring simple 2D calls instead and OpenGL calls meet a lot of overhead.

                            With Wayland the situation may change a lot to the good. Hm?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by brosis View Post
                              So, judged from X11perf vs Qgears - we don't have bad performance due to driver problems,
                              but we have bad performance due to Xorg stack unable to use 3D-based/OpenGL-based hardware efficiently, preferring simple 2D calls instead and OpenGL calls meet a lot of overhead.

                              With Wayland the situation may change a lot to the good. Hm?
                              Since Wayland uses EGL, we hope. It has a much reduced API and much less state mess and more effective pipelined calls than GLX, but the EGL implementations on Mesa haven't been beaten to death for years, so we shall see.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X