Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37

Thread: Mesa 9.1 Results Are Mixed For Radeon Gallium3D

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,423

    Default Mesa 9.1 Results Are Mixed For Radeon Gallium3D

    Phoronix: Mesa 9.1 Results Are Mixed For Radeon Gallium3D

    After last week delivering benchmarks that showed Intel graphics being faster with Mesa 9.1 relative to earlier Mesa 3D releases, up today are benchmarks of Radeon Gallium3D (R600g) to compare the Mesa 9.1 performance to Mesa 9.0.2, 8.0.5, and 7.11.2.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18445

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    240

    Default Oh, what about more recent and powerful GPUs?

    You see, 4650 is both ancient and weak. How about benchmarking something more interesting like HD5000/6000 GPUs? Unfortunately, for some obscure reasons, most of phoronix benchmarks for Radeon are done on such an ancient GPU. You see, these days you can't buy HD4000 GPU in unused condition anyway.

    Furthermore, core i7 + 4650? Oh, that's a really decent example of very unbalanced system. Hi-end modern CPU + Low-end and outdated GPU? Really strange scenario.
    Last edited by 0xBADCODE; 02-06-2013 at 12:51 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Kansas.
    Posts
    206

    Default

    Hmm. I bet the reason why he uses a high end CPU when testing graphics cards is so that there won't be weird performance drops because of the cpu being under-powered.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,733

    Default

    High-end cpu + low-end gpu is my setup exactly

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8

    Default

    You see, 4650 is both ancient and weak. How about benchmarking something more interesting like HD5000/6000 GPUs? Unfortunately, for some obscure reasons, most of phoronix benchmarks for Radeon are done on such an ancient GPU. You see, these days you can't buy HD4000 GPU in unused condition anyway.
    Open source graphics drivers benchmarks for older series Radeon HD 4000, 3000, 2000 and even older are necessary. There are no alternative drivers for these cards after amd has dropped support.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,185

    Default

    The 4650 is an older mid-range card, and not "ancient and weak" by any means. Radeon X300 = ancient and weak.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neatnoise View Post
    There are no alternative drivers for these cards after amd has dropped support.
    That's somewhat valid point. Though there is "catalist legacy" which AFAIK suppors older cards and uplifted to work with recent xorg, etc. So it's only partially valid statement. And hey, running other GPUs with opensource drivers is interesting idea as well! After all, I'm really unhappy with quality of proprietary driver and how it behaves. Most of time it would be unable to generate package properly for my system and installing it without package is troublesome and pollutes system to say the least. And deinstall usually wrecked. Should I admit it's a valid reason to dislike proprietary driver? It could wreck ubuntu on nearly every OS version upgrade for example. Especially if you installed version from AMD site. Yet I never faced something like that with opensource drivers.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    High-end cpu + low-end gpu is my setup exactly
    This is very unbalanced setup. It basically shows that you don't really care about 3D performance at all. So, do you really care about 3D benchmarks when running on this setup? Why? I fail to understand that.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
    This is very unbalanced setup. It basically shows that you don't really care about 3D performance at all. So, do you really care about 3D benchmarks when running on this setup? Why? I fail to understand that.
    I'm a developer first, and I care a lot about cpu performance. Most of the things I do can also take full advantage of my six cores. Phenom X6 and a HD4350.

    My primary criteria for a gpu: low tdp (<60W, electricity is not cheap), passive (no noise), runs on free drivers with most features.


    That said, I do play some games, and also develop some 3d games and visualizations. For those I do care about these benchmarks. It just so happens that the other things have more priority for me than 3d oomph, but I can still care about getting more performance from my existing card.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ua=42 View Post
    Hmm. I bet the reason why he uses a high end CPU when testing graphics cards is so that there won't be weird performance drops because of the cpu being under-powered.
    Right. However, high CPU usage by driver is a problem as well. And btw, opensource radeon driver is quite troublesome at this. I.e. there is severe CPU load when running 3D games. Attempt to profile this situation lead me to think that it's GPU driver who eats most CPU in it's ioctl. Unfortunately, tracing, profiling and so on has proven to be very delicate when it comes to graphics. I've got a number of hard lockups when trying to profile or trace things anyhow better so I only managed to get impression that ioctl of radeon's driver is a CPU hog. But not more than that.

Posting Permissions

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