After using my new PCIE R500 card with radeon for some weeks I can post some results. Compared to the previous Matrox G450 PCI.
First, image quality is noticably lower. I know this is not related to drivers, but one would expect other companies to have catched up to a 9 year old card way after it's release.
Second, on my CRT I notice "waves" sometimes. This could be from the driver, but also from the weak CRTC of current cards.
3D is of course way faster; the Matrox had opengl 1.2 but for most things it was only barely faster than software rendering. Comparing OpenArena, the Matrox had 640x480 all low @ 80 fps, and now my X1300 Pro has 1024x768 all high @ 110 fps (GL 1.3 in the driver, 2.0 in the HW).
Now the main point. 2D is not "slow" per se, but it is noticably slower than vesa with shadowfb or my old Matrox with it's XAA accel. It takes maybe 2-4 times longer to show windows contents, resize, or open a new tab in Opera for example. It is only noticable because I got used to the old speed; but should it not be faster, not slower?
It has EXA over XAA. It has the bandwith of PCIE 16x vs the bandwith of PCI (133 mib/s -> 4000 mib/s). It has way more ram (32mb -> 256mb). And it's not from the generation that does 2d completely on the 3d engine; it still has a dedicated 2d chip. And the card itself is 7 years newer, has way more power, has better memory (DDR -> DDR2).
Am I out of the line expecting improved 2d performance, not a degradation, from a newer card? Is this something that is caused by the driver, or is this the sad reality?
PS: Radeon devs, don't take this too hard, I do appreciate the tear-free XV that supports 4kx4k video (G450 XV could not play anything over 1024 in width)
First, image quality is noticably lower. I know this is not related to drivers, but one would expect other companies to have catched up to a 9 year old card way after it's release.
Second, on my CRT I notice "waves" sometimes. This could be from the driver, but also from the weak CRTC of current cards.
3D is of course way faster; the Matrox had opengl 1.2 but for most things it was only barely faster than software rendering. Comparing OpenArena, the Matrox had 640x480 all low @ 80 fps, and now my X1300 Pro has 1024x768 all high @ 110 fps (GL 1.3 in the driver, 2.0 in the HW).
Now the main point. 2D is not "slow" per se, but it is noticably slower than vesa with shadowfb or my old Matrox with it's XAA accel. It takes maybe 2-4 times longer to show windows contents, resize, or open a new tab in Opera for example. It is only noticable because I got used to the old speed; but should it not be faster, not slower?
It has EXA over XAA. It has the bandwith of PCIE 16x vs the bandwith of PCI (133 mib/s -> 4000 mib/s). It has way more ram (32mb -> 256mb). And it's not from the generation that does 2d completely on the 3d engine; it still has a dedicated 2d chip. And the card itself is 7 years newer, has way more power, has better memory (DDR -> DDR2).
Am I out of the line expecting improved 2d performance, not a degradation, from a newer card? Is this something that is caused by the driver, or is this the sad reality?
PS: Radeon devs, don't take this too hard, I do appreciate the tear-free XV that supports 4kx4k video (G450 XV could not play anything over 1024 in width)
Comment