AMD R600/700 2D Performance: Open vs. Closed Drivers

[kernelOfTruth]

That's not really relevant in this... Windows with or Without seems more responsive than Linux with or without compositing.

which "Windows" ?

you already tried a kernel with BFS and/or 2.6.32-rc1 ?

those have the latest changes in cpu scheduling which should make desktop interactivity significantly better

[nanonyme]

which "Windows" ?

But Windows 7 RC, naturally. You don't honestly think I'd pay for any of their earlier productions? (actually might for Windows 7) Anyway, getting offtopic here.

[Linuxhippy]

So now you have shitty performance with the 2D desktop (burden on the CPU) and the only way to activate GPU accelerated desktop was by enabling compositing which was also putting more burden on system performance.

I wonder why so many semi-professionals have the idea that 2D=CPU and 3D=GPU, and therefor "3D is faster".

I don't recall who often I have heard people stating that 2D rendering will be accelerated by your 3D engine because of compiz or similar bullshit.

2D is accelerated by the GPU if the driver is capable (currently all major dirvers except fglrx). period.

- Clemens

[V!NCENT]

I wonder why so many semi-professionals have the idea that 2D=CPU and 3D=GPU, and therefor "3D is faster".

I don't recall who often I have heard people stating that 2D rendering will be accelerated by your 3D engine because of compiz or similar bullshit.

2D is accelerated by the GPU if the driver is capable (currently all major dirvers except fglrx). period.

2D on Windows Vista and 7 is just as much accelerated by the GPU as CPU Ray tracing is. 2D in NT6.0 is pure fallback. So like: hey let's render this in software and then send the entire desktop to the framebuffer. 3D in NT6.0 is in some cases faster because it actually mostly runs inside the GPU. Catch my drift? This performance gain is mostly held back by compositing which puts extra burden on the GPU. It is also why games like Crysis runs slower in Vista than it does on XP, while it's designed for Vista and even then it is not crippled (on XP you miss some graphical features and Crysis only runs on one core).

[Linuxhippy]

2D on Windows Vista and 7 is just as much accelerated by the GPU as CPU Ray tracing is.

GDI is software-only. However WPF as well as GDI+ now sit on top of D3D. Even Java does its 2D drawing using D3D. So basically you say that a legacy API is software-only, not 2D in general.
The same goes for Xorg. Yes X11 core drawing is mostly fallback, but XRender is usually accelerated quite well, despite the fact that its 2D.

3D in NT6.0 is in some cases faster because it actually mostly runs inside the GPU. Catch my drift?

I don't see how "3D" differs between XP and Vista, when talking about D3D or OpenGL.

This performance gain is mostly held back by compositing which puts extra burden on the GPU. It is also why games like Crysis runs slower in Vista than it does on XP, while it's designed for Vista and even then it is not crippled (on XP you miss some graphical features and Crysis only runs on one core).

As far as I know, compositing is disabled for fullscreen games (would be really stupid anyway).

- Clemens

[kernelOfTruth]

2D is accelerated by the GPU if the driver is capable (currently all major dirvers except fglrx). period.

- Clemens

so please explain what the setting:

Option "Textured2D" "on"

means for fglrx

[Linuxhippy]

so please explain what the setting:
Option "Textured2D" "on"
means for fglrx

Well, even without "Textured2D" fglrx does a bit of hw acceleration, Texture2D adds another few operarations and is known to often cause troubles.
So if a driver accelerates 10% of operations stable, and 25% if I turn on experimental switches, I don't call it capable