Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 51

Thread: AMD Catalyst vs. X.Org Radeon Driver 2D Performance

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Radoboj, Croatia
    Posts
    155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MostAwesomeDude View Post
    I would bet that their test numbers would go down significantly if a compositor were enabled, although it's entirely possible that they've improved their compositing since then.]

    ~ C.
    That's exactly what I wanted to ask. If I use fglrx with compiz it's slow, but without compiz it's quite usable. With radeon driver I got a lot better 2D experience and good multi-monitor support (very useful on laptops), but unfortunately I have to use fglrx because of the PowerPlay and at almost two times more FPS in 3D games (with fglrx scorched3D works perfectly, with radeon it's almost unplayable).

    My card is Mobility Radeon X1600 (R500).

    As soon as radeon driver gets PowerPlay support and better 3D support, I will rather use radeon driver than fglrx.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    290

    Default

    Interesting article, was a good read. Hoping for a sequel with more reallife applications to see how combinations of these aspects perform.

    After reading my share of ati related driver development I can't surpress the feeling this test only shows that the prop. driver is aimed toward 3d accelaration to get the 2d acceleration up-and-running. untill then the 2d performance of catalyst is not wat it must be... just a brainfart from my side

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MostAwesomeDude View Post
    Can't say I'm really surprised. On one hand, fglrx has massive amounts of code. There's spots in our EXA where we have just said, "this could be accelerated, but not without a lot of spaghetti." fglrx is spaghetti.

    On the other hand, fglrx has some known weaknesses. The pixmap test is the classic example, although there were a few others that pleasantly surprised me. Their handling of things when a compositor is enabled also sucks; I would bet that their test numbers would go down significantly if a compositor were enabled, although it's entirely possible that they've improved their compositing since then.]
    Can't confirm this with 9.2 Beta and a HD3650 (AGP):

    under KDE4
    wihtout desktop effetct:

    GtkPerf 0.40 - Starting testing: Sun Jan 18 21:45:04 2009

    GtkDrawingArea - Pixbufs - time: 1,40
    ---
    Total time: 1,41


    with desktop effects enabled:
    GtkPerf 0.40 - Starting testing: Sun Jan 18 21:45:13 2009

    GtkDrawingArea - Pixbufs - time: 0,12
    ---
    Total time: 0,12

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    40N 105W
    Posts
    45

    Default

    ...or run the Phoronix Test Suite yourself to see how your system stacks up.
    What's the Phoronix Test Suite command? Is there a suite name?

    Thanks!

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WSmart View Post
    What's the Phoronix Test Suite command? Is there a suite name?

    Thanks!
    One way to find out is to look at the properties of the package using the command line or the Synaptic package manager and look at the files it installed. Look for the binaries it put in /usr/bin. Another way is to start typing phoronix and just hit tab twice several times =D

    Of course, eventually making a GUI interface and menu icon for the PTS would be really great. Maybe that's coming in version 2?

  6. #16

    Default

    phoronix-test-suite batch-benchmark gtkperf jxrendermark renderbench

    Should cover it when running version 1.6.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DoDoENT View Post
    That's exactly what I wanted to ask. If I use fglrx with compiz it's slow, but without compiz it's quite usable. With radeon driver I got a lot better 2D experience and good multi-monitor support (very useful on laptops), but unfortunately I have to use fglrx because of the PowerPlay and at almost two times more FPS in 3D games (with fglrx scorched3D works perfectly, with radeon it's almost unplayable).

    My card is Mobility Radeon X1600 (R500).

    As soon as radeon driver gets PowerPlay support and better 3D support, I will rather use radeon driver than fglrx.

    I am using powerplay with radeon driver on my mobility x1600 for a few months now and it is working great..you need few patches from this brantch I think

    http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~agd5f/x...=agd-powerplay

  8. #18

    Default

    To reiterate, each driver was left in its stock configuration with no extra xorg.conf options being set or AMDPCSDB options being assigned.
    So both are using XXA? It would have be nice to test also EXA, since XXA is incomplete (i.e. no Render accell) on R300 and newer cards - at least on the "free" driver.
    Last edited by oibaf; 01-19-2009 at 05:36 AM.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    What? The test was done without EXA for the radeon driver? Is this a joke?

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,153

    Default

    I *think* Radeon uses EXA by default or, at least, Ubuntu enables EXA without user intervention.

Posting Permissions

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