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.
ati-glsl and ati-arb are wine settings.
just look at the far right for the catalyst results, all the others are r600g.
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
could've been written any clearer.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.
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.