Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Half-Life 2 On Wine Is Faster On AMD R600g Over Catalyst

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    I have noticed this with starcraft2. The open source drivers tend to work better then the catalyst. At least for me.

    ..

    I think that part of the deal is that the 'highly optimized' nature of catalyst is often on a per-app basis. In order to look good in benchmarks AMD has spent considerably money profiling and creating optimized code paths for specific applications. If you are not using a particular gaming engine or application that AMD didn't anticipate or put a lot of effort into optimizing then the open source drivers are going to be more competitive.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kbios View Post
    @przemoli, dhewg, Drago
    As clearly stated in the article, the Catalyst result is the one at the right end of the graphs. Glsl and arb have nothing to do with the driver. The text makes perfect sense to me...
    Oh, now I see it. Still confusing though :P

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Russe, Bulgaria
    Posts
    505

    Default

    I doubt that. r600g doesn't have a shader optimizer, how possibly it can beat Catalyst?

    Quote Originally Posted by drag View Post
    I think that part of the deal is that the 'highly optimized' nature of catalyst is often on a per-app basis. In order to look good in benchmarks AMD has spent considerably money profiling and creating optimized code paths for specific applications. If you are not using a particular gaming engine or application that AMD didn't anticipate or put a lot of effort into optimizing then the open source drivers are going to be more competitive.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Russe, Bulgaria
    Posts
    505

    Default

    I very doubt that, either. In clear_d3d test text below is saying r600g has much better performance than Catalyst, but all see is virtually overlapping grapths. WTF?

    Quote Originally Posted by dhewg View Post
    Oh, now I see it. Still confusing though :P

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drago View Post
    I very doubt that, either. In clear_d3d test text below is saying r600g has much better performance than Catalyst, but all see is virtually overlapping grapths. WTF?
    The two graphs are not r600g vs Catalys, it's two modes in Wine, the Catalyst is the spike at the end of the graph, the rest of it is r600g on different versions of Wine.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,079

    Default

    ati-glsl and ati-arb are wine settings.

    just look at the far right for the catalyst results, all the others are r600g.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    574

    Default

    What a useless bunch of crap! Why Michael decided to post this is beyond me. He could have at least took the results and reformatted them to make some sense in the graphs

    So far there have been more comments on the terrible graphs than when they're supposed to be displaying

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChemicalBrother View Post
    I'm sorry, but "clearly" is wrong wording. The labeling is very confusing and also: the last two result seemed to be Catalyst, according to the first page, not only the last one.
    No, the two points rows in the first page are for the two lines with arb and glsl so just one point of the x axis is the catalyst driver, eg the last one.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireBurn View Post
    So far there have been more comments on the terrible graphs than when they're supposed to be displaying
    Which boggles my mind completely. Because I don't see how
    What we are looking at is the result on the far right side, which is the fglrx/Catalyst performance while the rest of the results are from Wine on the Radeon Gallium3D open-source driver.
    could've been written any clearer.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    800x600 as res used for all tests? Most be a joke or?
    "As far as why the open-source driver is outperforming the highly optimized closed-source driver, Stefan wrote, "I don't have an explanation for this yet, especially considering that fglrx beats r600g by a factor of 5 in most of your Linux-native tests. A possible cause is that my test setup is heavily CPU limited (usually 800x600 resolution, no multisampling). This was a conscious decision when I set up the tests because Wine's main performance issues are on the CPU side, not the GPU side. However, at least r300g's main problems seem to be GPU-related (not sure about r600g).""

    Unless he means, WINE has CPU issues when using AMD drivers, I disagree. WINE had no CPU bottlenecks in all games I played (NOLF2 and stuff).
    Still, even with 800x600 this shows open driver has no resolution-associated CPU issues, which is good.
    Running 1920 parallel would be good though, even if opensource looses.

Posting Permissions

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