Tweet
I was wondering, what would the performance delta on similar hardware be for AIGLX with the "nvidia" binary driver, the "fglrx", and probably "nouveau" and "radeon" drivers.
Doing a subjective comparison between the performance of my nVidia desktop setpu and my girlfriend's ATI based laptop, performance (as well as CPU utilization) is very unequal. On my desktop with my soon-to-be-replaced FX 5900 and driver 100.14.19, not only performance seems to be better, but this setup seems to also utilize less CPU. Now the laptop doesn't have a "good" graphics adapter, according to the Catalyst Control Center, it is a Radeon X1100 IGP, apparently on the PCI bus (I would have expected it to be PCI-E, but apparently it isn't), running the 8.42.3 drivers. With these setups the performance difference is abysmal with stuff like the water effect (~12 FPS with the laptop and 60+ FPS in the desktop with Beryl set to sync to vBlank). Also worth noting is that the laptop's CPU is orders of magnitude faster than my desktop's and that on my desktop I'm running 64-bit Fedora 7, and the laptop is running 32-bit Fedora 7 as well. For pretty much regular desktop use, the laptop is actually very comfortable, and since you can change on-the-fly (with full features/performance gain) the window manager between Beryl or Metacity (for example), it is not much of an issue for stuff like mild 3D games... However, current lack of Xv in the fglrx drivers with AIGLX, though not a problem (switching between Metacity and Beryl is, again, not a problem), is kind of annoying. Not even stuff from youtube would play show while running Beryl on the laptop.
At any rate, I'd like you guys at the test labs, to throw together a head-to-head nvidia Vs fglrx comparison, throwing into the mix the 2D comparison you ran for the open and closed source ATI drivers, as well as gaming, AIGLX, features, etc.
Doing a subjective comparison between the performance of my nVidia desktop setpu and my girlfriend's ATI based laptop, performance (as well as CPU utilization) is very unequal. On my desktop with my soon-to-be-replaced FX 5900 and driver 100.14.19, not only performance seems to be better, but this setup seems to also utilize less CPU. Now the laptop doesn't have a "good" graphics adapter, according to the Catalyst Control Center, it is a Radeon X1100 IGP, apparently on the PCI bus (I would have expected it to be PCI-E, but apparently it isn't), running the 8.42.3 drivers. With these setups the performance difference is abysmal with stuff like the water effect (~12 FPS with the laptop and 60+ FPS in the desktop with Beryl set to sync to vBlank). Also worth noting is that the laptop's CPU is orders of magnitude faster than my desktop's and that on my desktop I'm running 64-bit Fedora 7, and the laptop is running 32-bit Fedora 7 as well. For pretty much regular desktop use, the laptop is actually very comfortable, and since you can change on-the-fly (with full features/performance gain) the window manager between Beryl or Metacity (for example), it is not much of an issue for stuff like mild 3D games... However, current lack of Xv in the fglrx drivers with AIGLX, though not a problem (switching between Metacity and Beryl is, again, not a problem), is kind of annoying. Not even stuff from youtube would play show while running Beryl on the laptop.
At any rate, I'd like you guys at the test labs, to throw together a head-to-head nvidia Vs fglrx comparison, throwing into the mix the 2D comparison you ran for the open and closed source ATI drivers, as well as gaming, AIGLX, features, etc.
Comment