Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RadeonSI GLAMOR 2D Performance vs. Catalyst

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

  • #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