Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Radeon Gallium3D R600g Color Tiling Performance

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,702

    Default Radeon Gallium3D R600g Color Tiling Performance

    Phoronix: Radeon Gallium3D R600g Color Tiling Performance

    With 2D color tiling enabled by default in the R600 Gallium3D Radeon open-source driver as of this week, here are new benchmarks showing off the OpenGL performance impact of the 1D and 2D tiling methods for this common open-source AMD Linux graphics driver.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18099

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    18

    Default

    This confirms what I am seeing with my silly "one rotating static texture" test. No big improvement yet when I enable 2D tiling for textures and the frame buffer. Perhaps there is a specific usage scenario where 2d tiling helps and I am not hitting it, though I thought that rasterising a big texture is precisely that.

    (BTW, I verified that it is indeed enabled by poking values directly. The sizzling pattern is insane! :-)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tmikov View Post
    This confirms what I am seeing with my silly "one rotating static texture" test. No big improvement yet when I enable 2D tiling for textures and the frame buffer. Perhaps there is a specific usage scenario where 2d tiling helps and I am not hitting it, though I thought that rasterising a big texture is precisely that.

    (BTW, I verified that it is indeed enabled by poking values directly. The sizzling pattern is insane! :-)
    YOu won't exhaust GPU VRAM bandwidth with 1 big texture. You really need to push the bandwidth requirement to clearly see 2D tiling effect. 1 Big texture is not a test stressing the gpu.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    even if its just a few extra FPS here and there, it doesn't seem to have any regressions and every little bit counts. I kinda get the impression most of the ATI/AMD open source drivers are slow because of dozens of little things like this that are missing. I doubt that there are many core problems that would cause anything higher than say a 40% performance increase.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Why a 4650 of all things?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glisse View Post
    YOu won't exhaust GPU VRAM bandwidth with 1 big texture. You really need to push the bandwidth requirement to clearly see 2D tiling effect. 1 Big texture is not a test stressing the gpu.
    Fair enough. But what would be a good synthetic stress test?

    Also, do you have an idea why the blob is faster? Could it be memory clocks, power management, etc?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonzest View Post
    Why a 4650 of all things?
    maybe because with such a low end card any improvements of 2d tiling will be lost and so he can write some more stupid articles?

    4650 a 'midrange' card my ass. No, back then the 4770 was a midrange card. Nowadays a 5770/6770/7770 is a midrange card. 4650? That is low end in todays standards.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tmikov View Post
    Fair enough. But what would be a good synthetic stress test?

    Also, do you have an idea why the blob is faster? Could it be memory clocks, power management, etc?
    No, it's because it has millions of lines of code, specifically hand-optimized for every imaginable usage scenario under the sun, all tweaked with heuristics over 15 years of development.

    The Mesa devs first try to implement all features in the natural, straight-forward way, and then optimise later, once the features are in place and stable.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    No, it's because it has millions of lines of code, specifically hand-optimized for every imaginable usage scenario under the sun, all tweaked with heuristics over 15 years of development.

    The Mesa devs first try to implement all features in the natural, straight-forward way, and then optimise later, once the features are in place and stable.
    Thank you for this generic armchair response, but that's not really what I am looking for. I am trying to find our why the blob is much faster at rendering a single texture.

    All that talk about 15 years of optimization and special cases for games is utter nonsense, unless the fundamental underlying operations are fast. Things like 2D tiling is exactly the fundamental improvements I am talking about. Perhaps there is something else missing that we don't know about.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tmikov View Post
    Thank you for this generic armchair response, but that's not really what I am looking for. I am trying to find our why the blob is much faster at rendering a single texture.
    In your case, it is about 4ms faster at rendering a single texture.

    Optimising 4ms away is really hard work, especially if it consists of 100 different miliseconds collected across different parts of the driver. That's what my armchair response was about.

Posting Permissions

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