2d performance is looking good with the OSS driver .
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
AMD R600/700 2D Performance: Open vs. Closed Drivers
Collapse
X
-
-
Well, it's a bit strange. In synthetic benchmarks (like done by Phoronix), the NVidia drivers perform extremely well. A few quick benches (w/ JXRenderMark) show that XRender performance is a lot better (than a Radeon 3850 w/ OSS drivers) on a GeForce 8600 GT despite the hardware being a lot slower.
Just a few XRender operations are slow on NVidia; gradients aren't accelerated, for example. Maybe KDE depends on these operations being fast?
Comment
-
Originally posted by chrisr View PostI own a Radeon HD 4650, and have tested the Catalyst 9.9 driver against it at least. The performance is not good!. World of Warcraft's Launcher program has a very large picture on it, and fglrx takes ages to display it. You can practically see it being drawn, a line of pixels at a time.
My Radeon 9550 dances rings around the HD 4650 at this task; and the 9550 is using the OSS driver. You can imagine that an ordinary desktop with the HD 4650 is somewhat less than "snappy".
This is true for all the benchmarks identified as well as newer versions of Wine.
Comment
-
-
This brings me to a question.
It seems that the old R300 cards and older have good 2D and 3D OSS support. Maybe we need an overall graph / database on what support level vs performance all graphics cards have.
Ie R300 **** four star OSS
R700/800 *** three star OSS ?
That's My 5 cents.. =)
Comment
-
Originally posted by b15hop View PostThis brings me to a question.
It seems that the old R300 cards and older have good 2D and 3D OSS support. Maybe we need an overall graph / database on what support level vs performance all graphics cards have.
Ie R300 **** four star OSS
R700/800 *** three star OSS ?
That's My 5 cents.. =)
Unfortunately server is down today.
Comment
-
Originally posted by greg View PostWell, it's a bit strange. In synthetic benchmarks (like done by Phoronix), the NVidia drivers perform extremely well. A few quick benches (w/ JXRenderMark) show that XRender performance is a lot better (than a Radeon 3850 w/ OSS drivers) on a GeForce 8600 GT despite the hardware being a lot slower.
Just a few XRender operations are slow on NVidia; gradients aren't accelerated, for example. Maybe KDE depends on these operations being fast?
"Hardware acceleration" != Faster
I don't know the particulars for this driver, but it is common to run into OSS drivers that can perform these benchmarks faster, but in real-world desktops be much slower.
The deal is that if you have a mixture of software rendering and hardware rendering it means your doing lots of context switching and moving memory objects back and forth from the video ram to main ram.
So in synthetic benchmarks like this were a most of the operations are running in software you will actually get impressive performance.. but as soon as you start to mix hardware acceleration features into the mix then performance and efficiency dives.
So as result OSS drivers improve the performance on these benchmarks will actually likely _go_down_ as they move from mixed software/hardware rendering to performing all the operations on the GPU, which in many cases is slower then running it on the CPU.
Comment
Comment