Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 44

Thread: Intel Graphics Regressions In Ubuntu 9.04?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,123

    Default Intel Graphics Regressions In Ubuntu 9.04?

    Phoronix: Intel Graphics Regressions In Ubuntu 9.04?

    A month ago we compared Intel's graphics performance between Ubuntu 8.10 and the latest Ubuntu 9.04 daily snapshot at the time. With those tests we found Intel's performance had degraded significantly. However, with many new graphics packages having been released since then, we have carried out some additional tests this morning to look at where the Intel Linux graphics performance stands today.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13416

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    575

    Default

    ouch . it seems GPUs under linux just love to have issues all the times .

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Have you discussed with Intel or Mesa or Xorg to see what's the problem?
    It's not normal to have such a performance fall... And, most of all, they must know something about it, no? They surely have an explanation.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Creak View Post
    Have you discussed with Intel or Mesa or Xorg to see what's the problem?
    It's not normal to have such a performance fall... And, most of all, they must know something about it, no? They surely have an explanation.
    great article, very interesting.

    just one note, the T400 uses DDR3 RAM, not DDR2

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    /dev/random
    Posts
    218

    Default

    It seems like every was hinting that this had happened...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,514

    Default

    The developers certainly seem to be aware of it (see #dri-devel IRC a week or two ago). Gutting a working driver and rebuilding it around a central memory manager is about as invasive a change as you can get; I'm not surprised there are performance issues.

    We went through all this about 5 years ago on the Windows drivers and maybe 18 months ago on fglrx; the end result is always good... eventually... but things usually look pretty grim in the middle. Of course with a closed source driver you don't have to *show* anyone the really slow versions

    First step is usually to get all the new stuff working; second step is to make the performance not suck. I think they're just starting the second step now.
    Last edited by bridgman; 01-25-2009 at 12:02 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    56

    Default Why?

    While I understand that major changes are occurring and the graphics are a work in progress, that doesn't explain why distributions are picking up these broken pieces.

    The purpose of a distribution is to put together a working set of software. If I as an end-user have to swap out subsystems and recompile chunks to get a working stable system, the distributions are not doing their job.

    I can't speak for anyone else, obviously, but I'd rather hear that something wasn't upgraded because it wasn't stable, instead of "we gave you the leading edge software, but oops, it doesn't work". I've had more system hangs and video failures with the new graphics subsystem in the last few months than I ever had in the least stable Windows version.

    This didn't catch the distributions by surprise; everyone knew the changes were in progress. This is the same situation as those distributions that went to KDE 4.0 from 3.5, or to the new (broken) ALSA. Why? Bragging rights seem to be overriding common sense at this point. Once is a mistake. Twice is bad judgment. Three times is a trend. In the long run, this will undermine people's faith in Linux.
    Last edited by macemoneta; 01-25-2009 at 01:18 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by macemoneta View Post
    While I understand that major changes are occurring and the graphics are a work in progress, that doesn't explain why distributions are picking up these broken pieces....
    Ubuntu 9.04 is alpha software - it isn't even beta yet. Please don't confuse software included in development releases that is unstable with choices about which packages are shipped in the final distribution.

    (Perhaps Phoronix should have a standard disclaimer at the start of all reviews for alpha/beta software)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    161

    Default

    Oh ... and I run the Intel driver, and Intrepid, and Ubuntu has only gotten more and more stable for me (except perhaps the current webcam frustrations)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig73 View Post
    Ubuntu 9.04 is alpha software - it isn't even beta yet. Please don't confuse software included in development releases that is unstable with choices about which packages are shipped in the final distribution.

    (Perhaps Phoronix should have a standard disclaimer at the start of all reviews for alpha/beta software)
    Ubuntu isn't the only distribution to pick up this code. Other distributions, like Fedora 10, are not in beta anymore.

Posting Permissions

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