Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 60

Thread: Bettering Radeon Gallium3D Performance With PCI-E 2.0

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,902

    Default Bettering Radeon Gallium3D Performance With PCI-E 2.0

    Phoronix: Bettering Radeon Gallium3D Performance With PCI-E 2.0

    While it will not take you up to the speeds of the Catalyst driver, besides the 2D color tiling patches, there are a few other outstanding features not yet enabled-by-default in the open-source Radeon graphics driver that can yield some performance boosts. One of these other features is enabling PCI Express 2.0 support within the Radeon DRM.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=16963

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Perth, Scotland
    Posts
    438

    Default

    Surprised this hasn't been mentioned before. It seems like a fairly big win overall and for once, it's already ready for us to use! I suspect this will work for me so I'll try it later.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    i test it with my hd4770 works perfect for me.

    but just to be sure how to check the status of the pcie mode?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,128

    Default

    Is there a correlation to the amount of VRAM?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    950

    Default

    Just in time for PCI-E 3.0
    Didn't image such a big boost, at least in Windows the boost is very little with pci-e 2.0
    ## VGA ##
    AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
    Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    407

    Default

    This performance gain is amazing, I mean up by 54%! I guess the bandwidth is really only needed when pushing much data, as in higher resolutions and large textures.. Or am I wrong? I will enable this today if I get the chance! Thank you for yet another awesome tip Michael. This alone is worth my Phoronix Subscription =)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    338

    Default

    Interesting tests, thank you Michael!
    This is exactly why I like to come to Phoronix!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    258

    Default

    actually im a little dissappointed. not by the boost, but by the fact i didnt know about it before. i was like "how can the catalyst driver be 10x faster?" there was no word about missing pci-e spec features in that article.
    what id like to see now would be a comparison of catalyst with radeon, on single core cpus (with pci-e enabled to the highest of course) and all the hardware features enabled that would potentially boost hardware performance in the oss driver.
    what other features are there, ready or yet to be met?
    (like higher, not default gpu stages maybe?)
    maybe a list of missing features would be good...
    is there a performance gain to be expected when the driver someday gets capable of multithreading? if so what would be the gain like?
    could there be the answer to the cpu bottleneck that seems to appear?

    what is the actual difference between catalyst abd the open source driver? and dont tell me its only about optimisation...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    950

    Default

    Among others hyper-z and 2d tiling which are being worked on. They will provide a big boost but there are so many things missing that I will be old before reaching parity with catalyst.
    ## VGA ##
    AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
    Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darkbasic View Post
    Among others hyper-z and 2d tiling which are being worked on. They will provide a big boost but there are so many things missing that I will be old before reaching parity with catalyst.
    Unless they start merging stuff from Catalyst to the FOSS drivers. I don't quite understand why they don't do that. I assume that the FOSS devs have access to the closed source code for Catalyst. I mean, what's the difference between merging actual Catalyst code and re-implementing it from open specifications? In the end, the functionality (and to some extent the code) should be the same.

Posting Permissions

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