Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nouveau For A $10 NVIDIA Graphics Card?

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

  • Nouveau For A $10 NVIDIA Graphics Card?

    Phoronix: Nouveau For A $10 NVIDIA Graphics Card?

    In this article is a look at the state of the open-source Nouveau Gallium3D driver on low-end NVIDIA GeForce graphics hardware. In particular, a $10 USD NVIDIA retail graphics card is being tested under Ubuntu Linux on both Nouveau and the proprietary NVIDIA driver and is then compared to a wide range of other low and mid-range offerings from NVIDIA's GeForce and AMD's Radeon graphics card line-up with a plethora of OpenGL benchmarks.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=16995

  • #2
    So... at what clock was the card running on mesa anyway?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by cb88 View Post
      So... at what clock was the card running on mesa anyway?
      It looked like dmesg was reporting the correct clock speed, or at least the same as the binary blob, unless I was reading it wrong... But I'm guessing that the Gallium driver wasn't using floating point textures or S3TC, and there are probably plenty of other optimizations/extensions that could explain the difference in performance.

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm interested in the Unigine performance of the 6570 - how come in those it's ~10% of the 5770 when in all other tests it's 50-100%?

        Comment


        • #5
          Broken ...

          So nexuiz is broken, yes ? Well, WORKSFORME, so unless you file a bug report it's NOT going to get fixed.

          As for the clock speed of the 9600 GSO, yes, you're reading it wrong:
          [ 15.202433] [drm] nouveau 0000:03:00.0: 3: core 500MHz shader 1250MHz memory 900MHz voltage 1000mV fanspeed 100%
          [ 15.202446] [drm] nouveau 0000:03:00.0: c: core 399MHz shader 810MHz memory 399MHz voltage 950mV

          c = current, 3 = maximum

          Comment


          • #6
            Wrong 9600GSO specs

            Doesn't look like anyone had mentioned this yet, so I registered so I could point it out. This card is not a 96 shader 9600GSO, it's the later 48 core variety. The stock core is 650 and memory is 900. The memory buss should be 256 bits (it's a cut down G94a/b die), but it looks like this model was further cost reduced by only populating half of the buss with higher density (currently cheaper) parts. A modern comparison for this card might be a GT520 which has same # of cores, but faster ones, though it has half yet the memory width and bandwidth (sharing the 900MHz memory clock with this part). It does have fewer ROPs and TMUs. The 9600GSO 512 has a 48:24:16 core:TMU:ROP layout while the GT520 has a 48:8:4 layout. The GT520 may have more highly featured/optimized TMUs and ROPs, though--plus other improvements made in the (almost) three years between their releases.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by curaga View Post
              I'm interested in the Unigine performance of the 6570 - how come in those it's ~10% of the 5770 when in all other tests it's 50-100%?
              Me too. Does anybody know why?

              Comment


              • #8
                which online retailer...? I couldn't find anybody offering it for less than about $50.. Even if it isn't terribly powerful, it is an interesting deal

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by curaga View Post
                  I'm interested in the Unigine performance of the 6570 - how come in those it's ~10% of the 5770 when in all other tests it's 50-100%?
                  Originally posted by Nedanfor View Post
                  Me too. Does anybody know why?

                  My guess would be because the HD6570 = Turks PRO is a Northern Islands based core while the HD5770 = Juniper XT is an Evergreen based core, Evergreen has had more time to cook then N. Islands.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Graph issues

                    I started reading this article at work. The graphs on pages 6-10 look awful in Internet Explorer 8 on Windows XP Professional. The names of the cards run into each other and they also obliterate the beginning of the standard error (SE) labels. It looked so awful that I gave up. I then tried to read this article on my mobile phone during the bus trip home, but the same poor display of the graphs occurs on Opera Mobile 10.00 on Windows Mobile 6.1 Professional. I gave up again. When I got home I tried again with Firefox 9.0.1 on Ubuntu 10.04 and the graphs looked much better. I then tried using Firefox's zoom in feature and the graphs still looked just as good.

                    Can something be done about this in the future?

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X