Originally posted by artivision
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
AMD's Catalyst Evolution For The Radeon HD 7000 Series
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by artivision View PostIf you have any deeper knowledge than mine, you welcome to discus it.
And theoretical performance is just that - theoretical. There are all kinds of reasons hardware never reaches those kinds of numbers in practice - the caches might be too small, not enough bandwidth to feed the processors, etc. There are hundreds of possible reasons, and it will be different for each and every design.
As far as the precision - ha, i still remember the 9700 vs FX days, when NVidia was insisting the 16 bits was all you ever needed, and no one could tell the difference between that and those fancy 24bit precision ATI cards.
Re: a grand conspiracy by MS to help AMD and hurt NVidia - uh, ok. whatever dude.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Nasenbaer View PostWINE is not an option because of the fast development of this project which also my encompass performance changes due to optimizations regarding WINE and not the display driver.
Comment
-
Originally posted by GreatEmerald View PostThat is hardly relevant. All the benchmarking would be done with a single Wine version, so any optimisations don't matter - they are either there or not there, the relative performance is the same.
And then the performance between two companies could be affected by bugs in the D3D<->OpenGL translations which one company can handle better than the other etc.
Native benchmarks would be better in my opinion. But a benchmark like this one, were u want to see the differences between dirver revision would still be possible when u use a single WINE version. But for long termn comparions its not so good I think.
Comment
-
I still don't see your point. In Ubuntu, for instance, we already have precompiled binaries. If they are not updated during the whole testing period, then the test results are valid, especially relatively. And even looking at absolute values, they would represent real-life performance, even if slightly dated. The differences between optimisations for different cards doesn't matter in that regard, too, because that's the performance you get. Tests like that don't say that card X is better than card Y, but rather that card X performs better on Wine than card Y.
Comment
-
Originally posted by GreatEmerald View PostI still don't see your point. In Ubuntu, for instance, we already have precompiled binaries. If they are not updated during the whole testing period, then the test results are valid, especially relatively. And even looking at absolute values, they would represent real-life performance, even if slightly dated. The differences between optimisations for different cards doesn't matter in that regard, too, because that's the performance you get. Tests like that don't say that card X is better than card Y, but rather that card X performs better on Wine than card Y.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Nasenbaer View PostAnd then the performance between two companies could be affected by bugs in the D3D<->OpenGL translations which one company can handle better than the other etc.
Native benchmarks would be better in my opinion. But a benchmark like this one, were u want to see the differences between dirver revision would still be possible when u use a single WINE version. But for long termn comparions its not so good I think.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kwahoo View PostThere still exist some demanding Windows OpenGL-based games: Rage (OGL only), Serious Sam 3 BFE (supports both D3D and OGL). The second one killed my 6670 (10-20 fps)
Comment
-
Originally posted by smitty3268 View PostIt's probably much more true on Windows for this card. They have all those per-application optimizations built into their drivers, catalyst A.I. swapping out shaders with more optimized versions, etc. there, which aren't necessary or present for the simple OSS games Michael tests on Linux. Although they might have some of that for Unigine.
Comment
Comment