Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 67

Thread: Ubuntu 12.10: Open-Source Radeon vs. AMD Catalyst Performance

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,375

    Default Ubuntu 12.10: Open-Source Radeon vs. AMD Catalyst Performance

    Phoronix: Ubuntu 12.10: Open-Source Radeon vs. AMD Catalyst Performance

    With Ubuntu trying to improve their OpenGL driver support state to push the Linux OS as a platform for gaming, Valve going to be promoting the closed-source NVIDIA and AMD drivers on Linux, and various other challenges still turning up for those trying to use the different Linux OpenGL drivers, here are some new benchmarks comparing the open-source Radeon Gallium3D driver against the closed-source AMD Catalyst driver.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18088

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    206

    Default 2D

    A few 2D benchmarks would've been nice, to see how much the Catalyst driver sucks for desktop workload.
    Its really sad 2D is ignored in Catalyst for years now, the mode where most users tend to spend their time.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Linuxhippy View Post
    A few 2D benchmarks would've been nice, to see how much the Catalyst driver sucks for desktop workload.
    Its really sad 2D is ignored in Catalyst for years now, the mode where most users tend to spend their time.
    Well, they did implement "A2AA" (AMD 2D Acceleration Architecture), previously known as Direct2D for Catalyst. That was supposed to improve 2D performance across the board. It kind of did, but 2D still stinks like rotten cheese on all the proprietary drivers.

    What really galls me about the open source AMD drivers is how much they've stalled on providing proper 3D support for Southern Islands. I thought it was here many months ago, but I was wrong.... it was just a "first cut". AMD doesn't seem to know how to really finish off the support on their open drivers -- they get it to the point where it can render a few triangles, and move on to the next chipset. And I guess the rest of the "community" built up around the open drivers hasn't invested the time this cycle to get SI running.

    Months ago, I was keeping track of the number of days we went before we could get a true and proper composited 3D desktop experience with working (mostly bug-free and performant) 2D and 3D drivers and OpenGL 2.1. I recall that the first mega-patch for SI hit well in advance of how long it took for Evergreen. Well, now it looks like SI will take longer than Evergreen. Definitely not a good sign, guys.

    Anyway, I don't care anymore. I sold my Radeon on eBay and am exclusively using Intel's excellent Ivy Bridge drivers for typical desktop computing with various compositors (Unity, Mutter, Muffin, Kwin). Works like a charm with 2D apps and light OpenGL. I'm using Bumblebee with an Optimus GPU for workloads where I need more oomph. So let's sum up: my typical 2D and composited desktop workloads are silken smooth and run on my processor's tiny graphics cores. My heavy lifting OpenGL 4.2 / OpenCL / CUDA is done by a 96-core NVS 5400M with the Nvidia proprietary driver. I get the benefit of both the Intel open source 2D and the Nvidia proprietary 3D without the disadvantages of either, and seamless power management. I think Torvalds was giving the finger to the wrong company.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    What really galls me about the open source AMD drivers is how much they've stalled on providing proper 3D support for Southern Islands. I thought it was here many months ago, but I was wrong.... it was just a "first cut". AMD doesn't seem to know how to really finish off the support on their open drivers -- they get it to the point where it can render a few triangles, and move on to the next chipset. And I guess the rest of the "community" built up around the open drivers hasn't invested the time this cycle to get SI running.

    Months ago, I was keeping track of the number of days we went before we could get a true and proper composited 3D desktop experience with working (mostly bug-free and performant) 2D and 3D drivers and OpenGL 2.1. I recall that the first mega-patch for SI hit well in advance of how long it took for Evergreen. Well, now it looks like SI will take longer than Evergreen. Definitely not a good sign, guys.
    Interestingly enough, a patch set hit the mailing list today which enables control flow on the SI driver. It'd be good to see what the current status of the driver is with that - supposedly i think it's getting pretty close now, but i don't know if it's still crashing all over the place or if it's considered stable.

    http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...er/029343.html
    radeonsi can run piglit reliably with it now. It fixes hundreds of tests and prevents many more from crashing.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ghent
    Posts
    207

    Default 60 fps

    I wonder what the purpose of 300 fps would be. As far as I have heard the human eye will only register up to 60 fps - so perhaps a better measure would be "at what resolution does the driver performance sink below ideal fps".

    This might give a different readout than just completely un-needed fps that do not give any noticeable difference for the human user.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by staalmannen View Post
    I wonder what the purpose of 300 fps would be. As far as I have heard the human eye will only register up to 60 fps - so perhaps a better measure would be "at what resolution does the driver performance sink below ideal fps".

    This might give a different readout than just completely un-needed fps that do not give any noticeable difference for the human user.
    Most of these cars have 3, 4 or even 6 outputs. So at the very least you need 60 FPS per output...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by staalmannen View Post
    I wonder what the purpose of 300 fps would be. As far as I have heard the human eye will only register up to 60 fps - so perhaps a better measure would be "at what resolution does the driver performance sink below ideal fps".

    This might give a different readout than just completely un-needed fps that do not give any noticeable difference for the human user.
    It's a measurement of performance. Not all games will run at equal or more than 60 fps under Catalyst. So on radeon you'll get much less. In these tests here radeon didn't always make the 60 anyway. 60 is actually the screen refresh rate. The eyes refresh rate is I think around 13 fps, but works much differently than the screen, and even if it didn't you'd need much more than 13 fps to see smooth transitions. Besides 60 fps is the usual refresh rate, so when you have less you'll likely get tearing, choppiness or lag(if the game doesn't skip the frames).
    But again, the point is to see how much better each driver utilizes the GPU's power here .. I'd say Catalyst(as expected) wins this one ..
    Of course there's tweaks to make things faster, but not everyone tweaks/wants to tweak their drivers, and mostly they don't always work well or at all and can potentially cause problems(that's why they're not tweaked by default).

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by staalmannen View Post
    I wonder what the purpose of 300 fps would be.
    Render the frame very fast and go back to idling, thus reducing power draw? Or, if the driver supports it, it allows you to add AA, AF or maybe AO on top, while till maintaining 60fps.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by staalmannen View Post
    I wonder what the purpose of 300 fps would be. As far as I have heard the human eye will only register up to 60 fps - so perhaps a better measure would be "at what resolution does the driver performance sink below ideal fps".

    This might give a different readout than just completely un-needed fps that do not give any noticeable difference for the human user.
    You have heard wrong. 60 hz is when flickering of CRTs tends to become unnoticeable for viewing objects head on. Try staring at a CRT running at 60 hz then viewing it with your periphrial vision.

    http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frame...humans_see.htm

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    ฿ 16LDJ6Hrd1oN3nCoFL7BypHSEYL84ca1JR
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    Anyway, I don't care anymore. I sold my Radeon on eBay and am exclusively using Intel's excellent Ivy Bridge drivers for typical desktop computing with various compositors (Unity, Mutter, Muffin, Kwin). Works like a charm with 2D apps and light OpenGL.
    That's funny because I use the ivy bridge drivers too and kwin opengl compositing has been totally broken for weeks now. First, it was awfully slow and kept occassionally stalling everything.

    (Now it immediately crashes when I change to opengl compositing but I think a X restart / reboot will fix it).

    kwin gles works better, but is graphically very glitchy, doesn't redraw the screen well enough.
    Last edited by ChrisXY; 10-31-2012 at 08:32 AM.

Posting Permissions

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