a graph and a whinge....maybe ubuntu is broken ?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ubuntu 12.10: Open-Source Radeon vs. AMD Catalyst Performance
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostYou are right, and I should have written "FLOSS radeon drivers".
What is missing is not really a part of OpenGL, but they are still missing: dynamic power management, UVD, OpenCL. Some belong in the kernel, some in Mesa, etc.
Since the GPU drivers are spread between different projects now, it's harder nowadays to be specific
Comment
-
Originally posted by locovaca View PostYou 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 peripheral vision.
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frame...humans_see.htm
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sidicas View PostJust in general, I noticed the performance doesn't scale well with OpenGL effects compared to Catalytst. Turning on bloom alone in the new version of openarena is enough to slaughter the framerate by 1/8th on r300g. I don't have the benchmarks with Catalyst and bloom, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't get slaughtered by 1/8th.
The less OpenGL effects you stack up, the closer the open source driver gets to Catalyst.
I noticed PTS likes to turn on every graphics option, including non-default graphics options. So pay attention to the graphics option as even a single option in there can sometimes absolutely slaughter the framerate of the open source driver compared to Catalyst.
It's not that the open source driver is a lot slower, rather it's just a tiny bit slower at some effect and then that effect is getting multiplied by 100x per second which adds up quickly. Turning off the graphics option and the framerate increases multiple fold. For some games, it's just a matter of finding which switch is killing your framerate with the open source driver, and it's almost always an optional graphics option.
Shocking, I know.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Veerappan View PostRadeon HD2000-4000 never really supported OpenCL in the first place (at least not fully, and not for what I needed it to do). For Evergreen and newer, we've got OpenCL support that's being worked on in the Mesa master repository, and the piglit OpenCL test support has been merged to piglit master. It's not necessarily finished yet, but it's getting better. If you give it a shot and find something that doesn't work email the mesa-dev list, create a piglit test, or submit a patch. I don't know if they're to the point of wanting bug reports, but piglit tests are even better in my opinion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by locovaca View PostYou 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
Simple test: take some benchmark thats running at @120 FPS. Hook it up to both a 60Hz screen and a 120Hz (native; none of this "Truemotion" junk Samsung/Sony push on TV's) screen. Do a blind test on which is smoother.
The human eye can *distinguish* a heck of a lot more frames then it can pick out individually. In other words: While the eye can't pick out individual frames much beyond 30 or so, it can distinguish the difference in motion between 30, 60, and 120 without issue.
Comment
-
Originally posted by gamerk2 View PostTranslation: The two drivers perform closer when the CPU is doing the majority of the work and the GPU does less.
Shocking, I know.
The driver runs on the CPU. The difference in performance is mostly caused by the FLOSS driver not being as optimised as the proprietary one.
Once the GPU HARDWARE gets the data, it will do it at the same speed. It's just that getting the right data to the hardware at the right moment takes longer with the open driver -- and that one runs on the CPU.
That's why 300+ fps benchmarks are much slower on open drivers -- the little latencies all add up 100 times, and that makes a big difference. When the majority of the work is done by the GPU, they are much closer in performance, since the driver is doing comparatively little, so the GPU is not starved waiting for it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by marek View PostMy graphics settings are maxed out. Still, I can't reach the low framerate I get with PTS.
I've never taken PTS seriously.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sidicas View PostJust in general, I noticed the performance doesn't scale well with OpenGL effects compared to Catalytst. Turning on bloom alone in the new version of openarena is enough to slaughter the framerate by 1/8th on r300g. I don't have the benchmarks with Catalyst and bloom, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't get slaughtered by 1/8th.
Originally posted by Kano View PostBasically every oss driver is not for "real" gamers.
Originally posted by Veerappan View PostIf you give it a shot and find something that doesn't work email the mesa-dev list, create a piglit test, or submit a patch.
Comment
-
Originally posted by GreatEmerald View PostYea, I noticed something similar. When testing UT2004, the general thing that impacted the performance of r600g was texture size. LOD is important, but way after texture size - the optimal settings that I've found for my cards was pretty much "low" texture size and "high" LOD.
Comment
Comment