Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: NVIDIA vs. AMD 2D Performance Benchmarks

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,344

    Default NVIDIA vs. AMD 2D Performance Benchmarks

    Phoronix: NVIDIA vs. AMD 2D Performance Benchmarks

    Yesterday on Phoronix we had benchmarks of high-end NVIDIA and AMD GPUs when looking at the Linux OpenGL performance on the proprietary drivers. For those more concerned about the 2D performance of the modern GeForce and Radeon graphics cards, here's some benchmarks for you.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20463

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    293

    Default

    Wow, when did that change? Catalyst 2D used to be quite slow!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oleid View Post
    Wow, when did that change? Catalyst 2D used to be quite slow!
    Four or five last releases i think having OK 2D, that is what i tried (runing now 14.4-rev2) . It is still Über Slow if used in 32bit OS (for unknown reason to me), but in 64bit OS it works just fine .

    Of course if i can guess (with in mind that opensource radeonsi uses 3D engine for 2D accel via glamor) that this 2D improvements maybe only aplay to the radeonsi hardware too . So give it a try on 64bit OS with radeonsi hardware, as also benchmarks shows it is also faster then nvidia there ... so i guess most will be satisfied with 2D performance .

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    375

    Default

    The 2D results for the Radeon HD 7950 running on Catalyst is nearly twice as fast as mine running with the latest Gallium3d drivers.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    375

    Default

    On a closer look, I noticed that the QGears2 tests are being run with XRender rather than OpenGL. Anyone know how these tests perform with OpenGL for Catalyst? Here's what my Radeon HD 7950 gets with QGears2 using the Gallium3D drivers:

    OpenGL
    Text = 355.83 Frames Per Second
    Gears = 316.15 Frames Per Second
    Image Scaling = 2233.10 Frames Per Second

    XRender
    Text = 126.28 Frames Per Second
    Gears = 113.99 Frames Per Second
    Image Scaling = 692.96 Frames Per Second

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,116

    Default

    Catalyst always sucked at 2D in the past but it has been pretty good since 2013. It's to the point where I don't really notice the driver and any possible slowdowns are coming from the toolkit/application.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mmstick View Post
    Anyone know how these tests perform with OpenGL for Catalyst?
    Lets see, this is with Athlon 5350 and of course flgrx 14.4-rev2 .

    OpenGL
    Text = 134.98 Frames Per Second
    Gears = 186.91 Frames Per Second
    Image Scaling = 1493.10 Frames Per Second

    XRender
    Text = 96.31 Frames Per Second
    Gears = 108.01 Frames Per Second
    Image Scaling = 562.79 Frames Per Second
    Faster as expected .

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Old Europe
    Posts
    904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by d2kx View Post
    Catalyst always sucked at 2D in the past but it has been pretty good since 2013. It's to the point where I don't really notice the driver and any possible slowdowns are coming from the toolkit/application.
    My 7950 *feels* blazing fast in 2d unless I don't use a compositor.
    In this case, the performance (especially scrolling) drops significantly.

    One exception:

    Does anybody use urxvt and Catalyst?
    Not sure if Catalyst doesn't provide an accelerated code path for whatever urxvt requires.
    While for intel and radeon systems the character throughput is extremely fast,
    I see terminal pages take *literally* 0.5-1 second to build up.
    Consequently, outputting lots of lines takes forever.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mmstick View Post
    On a closer look, I noticed that the QGears2 tests are being run with XRender rather than OpenGL. Anyone know how these tests perform with OpenGL for Catalyst? Here's what my Radeon HD 7950 gets with QGears2 using the Gallium3D drivers:

    OpenGL
    Text = 355.83 Frames Per Second
    Gears = 316.15 Frames Per Second
    Image Scaling = 2233.10 Frames Per Second

    XRender
    Text = 126.28 Frames Per Second
    Gears = 113.99 Frames Per Second
    Image Scaling = 692.96 Frames Per Second
    try with performance governer
    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...PL-1404055PL56
    hd 7790
    OpenGL
    Text = 303\213
    Gears = 473\250
    Image Scaling = 5259\2720

    XRender
    Text = 181\91
    Gears = 161\85
    Image Scaling = 331\173

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropy View Post
    Does anybody use urxvt and Catalyst?
    Not using, but tried it now... works tad fast here wit Catalyst . xterm too .

    I remeber that with xterm on radeon driver too, but that slowness some people hit actually depends on font setup... with some fonts both drivers can be slow there .
    Last edited by dungeon; 05-27-2014 at 08:58 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •