PM'd. Ten characters is a lot.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Open-Source Radeon HD 6000 Series Still Borked
Collapse
X
-
Anyway even 13 fps is nothing! With an OpenGL 2.1 rendering and a 1024*768 resolution it should be able to do more than 100 fps with proprietary drivers, so it's ten times slower, probably even more.
Fortunately mesa does not still support OpenGL 4.1, otherwise it will be a slideshow## VGA ##
AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)
Comment
-
Do you have a link to show that? In http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...e_heaven&num=2 even the best card, 4890 with the blob, did not break 80fps at 1024x768.
Would the 3.x vs 2.1 codepath really have that much impact?
Comment
-
Ok. 100 fps.
- Consider the rendering is better than OpenGL 2.1.
- Consider it is 1280x1024 instead of 1024x768
- Consider it has 16x Anisotropic filtering while mesa doesn't support it
- Consider it has 4xAA while mesa doesn't support anti aliasing.
- Consider the final FPS score is lower than a screenshot because sometimes there are big fps drop.
I was wrong, mesa is 30 times slower at least.## VGA ##
AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)
Comment
-
Originally posted by curaga View PostDo you have a link to show that? In http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...e_heaven&num=2 even the best card, 4890 with the blob, did not break 80fps at 1024x768.
Would the 3.x vs 2.1 codepath really have that much impact?
But of course, opensource driver lacks features and there is no optimization, hence this results. Still, you have a card from manufacturer that pays opensource development, which is very good.
Comment
-
Originally posted by darkbasic View PostOk. 100 fps.
- Consider the rendering is better than OpenGL 2.1.
- Consider it is 1280x1024 instead of 1024x768
- Consider it has 16x Anisotropic filtering while mesa doesn't support it
- Consider it has 4xAA while mesa doesn't support anti aliasing.
- Consider the final FPS score is lower than a screenshot because sometimes there are big fps drop.
I was wrong, mesa is 30 times slower at least.
What AMD could do, is put many many more people behind opensource driver - and associate them the way they associate their closed source development with card sells. They refuse so far.
By the way, that phenom II of yours is big bottleneck.Last edited by crazycheese; 13 July 2011, 07:09 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by curaga View PostDo you have a link to show that? In http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...e_heaven&num=2 even the best card, 4890 with the blob, did not break 80fps at 1024x768.
Would the 3.x vs 2.1 codepath really have that much impact?
Edit: I suppose they're probably using some geometry shaders as well. Forgot about that.Last edited by smitty3268; 13 July 2011, 09:14 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by crazycheese View PostHey, mesa is opensource! All the drawbacks you listed require huge crew of driver developers with access to hardware.## VGA ##
AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)
Comment
-
Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
Ok. 100 fps.
- Consider the rendering is better than OpenGL 2.1.
- Consider it is 1280x1024 instead of 1024x768
- Consider it has 16x Anisotropic filtering while mesa doesn't support it
- Consider it has 4xAA while mesa doesn't support anti aliasing.
- Consider the final FPS score is lower than a screenshot because sometimes there are big fps drop.
I was wrong, mesa is 30 times slower at least.
- not OGL path
That does show a big difference, but results from the linux blob would be more comparable.
Comment
-
20 fps in openarena with latest graphic stack and my HD5870.
Even before today's update it was too slow, Michael confirmed it:
If the 6870 does 153 fps, the 5870 should be even better because it's a faster card.
I got something like ~ 70 fps @1024x768 normal quality.## VGA ##
AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)
Comment
Comment