Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2D performance on 'radeon' vs 'radeonhd'

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

  • #16
    radeonhd runs glxgears faster than radeon here. 800+ vs 300+ FPS. Of course DRI is not loaded when under radeon, not that it can detect my R500, actually.

    I run a simple xorg.conf on radeonhd with only XAA turned on. When I replace "radeonhd" with "ati" and that's the result I get.

    How about that for a comparison?
    Or is it because it can't detect my chip?
    Last edited by sundown; 05-16-2008, 12:22 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Are you sure DRI isn't loaded for radeon? It ususally loads to support texturedvideo with CP. The DRI stuff may be the reason for the slowdown though, because it's there, but there's no acceleration.

      Comment


      • #18
        Update

        I updated drm modules, libdrm, mesa to latest git and tried ati driver with EXA.

        ati driver git 20080515 with EXA
        Code:
        $ gtkperf -a -c 500
        GtkPerf 0.40 - Starting testing: Tue May 20 15:50:08 2008
        
        GtkEntry - time:  0,09
        GtkComboBox - time:  7,84
        GtkComboBoxEntry - time:  5,97
        GtkSpinButton - time:  1,06
        GtkProgressBar - time:  0,60
        GtkToggleButton - time:  3,30
        GtkCheckButton - time:  3,25
        GtkRadioButton - time:  3,42
        GtkTextView - Add text - time: 12,55
        GtkTextView - Scroll - time:  2,58
        GtkDrawingArea - Lines - time:  2,48
        GtkDrawingArea - Circles - time:  1,83
        GtkDrawingArea - Text - time:  3,00
        GtkDrawingArea - Pixbufs - time:  0,27
         --- 
        Total time: 48,24
        It's a lot faster now, comparable to radeonhd with ShadowFB. "GtkTextView - Scroll" is about 3x faster than radeonhd.

        With glxgears I get this:
        Code:
        $ glxgears 
        Warning, RV530 detected, 3D HAHAHAHAHA!!.
        Mesa program:
        -------------
        # Fragment Program/Shader
          0: MOV OUTPUT[0], INPUT[1];
          1: END
        9787 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1957.329 FPS
        9890 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1977.899 FPS

        Comment


        • #19
          Ahh, now that's more like it

          Comment


          • #20
            Now if only someone would create bleeding-edge git .deb files for those packages...

            (hopeful)

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by sastraxi View Post
              Now if only someone would create bleeding-edge git .deb files for those packages...

              (hopeful)
              Look here:
              http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?p=32602

              Comment


              • #22
                2D performance on 'radeon' vs 'radeonhd'

                Next up on our testing schedule let's spend some time taking a look at power consumption. Rather than isolate the power consumption of the individual component being reviewed, we'll instead be taking a look at the power consumption of our test system as a whole to get a more real-world example of how an average system will behave in this discipline, comparing power usage with both a single Radeon HD 4850 board as well as with two boards running in CrossFire in place.For this review, we've split our power consumption testing into three segments, measuring the power used first when idling at a Windows Vista desktop, followed by testing again while playing back a Blu-Ray movie and then running an intensive 3D rendering task courtesy of 3DMark Vantage's two GPU tests.

                Comment

                Working...
                X