Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Thread: AMD RadeonSI Gallium3D Begins Simple CL Demos

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,555

    Default AMD RadeonSI Gallium3D Begins Simple CL Demos

    Phoronix: AMD RadeonSI Gallium3D Begins Simple CL Demos

    The open-source AMD RadeonSI Gallium3D driver is beginning to work when it comes to running simple OpenCL programs on the Radeon HD 7000 series graphics cards...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM3ODM

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    39

    Default

    The open-source AMD OpenCL support is in even worse shape than the lacking and not-always-fast OpenGL support, but in the past few months for the HD 5000/6000 series hardware with the R600g driver it's begun to work for simple and small OpenCL programs
    "In even worse shape than the lacking and not-always-fast OpenGL support" sounds really bad, as if nothing can be worse than OpenGL support in r600g. Really, Michael, are you trying to say that OpenGL support in r600g is the worst of all open-source drivers?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Beats the hell out of me too. My experience with r600g has been awesome. No glitches, no slowness, no tearing, no crashing, both monitors work. Better than catalyst. It only lack proper power management.

    EDIT: Can someone explain the context in which r600g was mentioned? My understanding is that radeonsi and r600g are both mesa drivers one for HD2000 thru HD6000 and the other for GCN class HD7000 and up. The article is titled about radeonsi, but it seems that r600g was mentioned only to make fun of it.
    Last edited by duby229; 05-24-2013 at 06:45 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Maybe Michael should just forget about all sponsorship deals with any companies for a moment and publish e.g. Unigine Heaven 3.0 benchmark results for the top NVidia, AMD, and Intel GPUs in a single benchmark article, so that users could see what gpus perform better on open-source drivers...
    Last edited by vadimg; 05-24-2013 at 06:53 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    EDIT: Can someone explain the context in which r600g was mentioned? My understanding is that radeonsi and r600g are both mesa drivers one for HD2000 thru HD6000 and the other for GCN class HD7000 and up. The article is titled about radeonsi, but it seems that r600g was mentioned only to make fun of it.
    Nah, it was to shoehorn in a cross-reference to another article to potentially increase AD revenue. Phoronix always does that.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    ฿ 16LDJ6Hrd1oN3nCoFL7BypHSEYL84ca1JR
    Posts
    1,043

    Default

    Fyi with run_tests.sh from git://people.freedesktop.org/~tstellar/opencl-example

    Code:
    6 passes, 65 fails
    And these seem to be rather trivial tests like
    Code:
    Running ./math-int add 1 2 3
    Failed
    LLVM 3.3 svn, mesa git master.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisXY View Post
    Fyi with run_tests.sh from git://people.freedesktop.org/~tstellar/opencl-example

    Code:
    6 passes, 65 fails
    And these seem to be rather trivial tests like
    Code:
    Running ./math-int add 1 2 3
    Failed
    LLVM 3.3 svn, mesa git master.
    These all work for me on Evergreen, what GPU are you using?

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vadimg View Post
    "In even worse shape than the lacking and not-always-fast OpenGL support" sounds really bad, as if nothing can be worse than OpenGL support in r600g. Really, Michael, are you trying to say that OpenGL support in r600g is the worst of all open-source drivers?
    No, not at all, it was in reference to performance against the proprietary drivers.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    But nobody ever said that the OSS drivers would. It's been said repeatedly on these very forums that 70% of catalyst is about as close to the ideal as could be achieved. I'm certain that the open drivers have already passed that. The performance expectations were made perfectly clear from the beginning years ago. And it surpassed them. I don't understand where this nonsense about poor performance is coming from. Your very own benchmarks proved multiple times that the open drivers perform damn good.

    I understand that many people play the open source shooters you like to use as benchmarks, but they don't stress modern hardware, therefore they -can't- represent what the hardware can do. It's just not possible with the games that you benchmark to represent performance on modern cards. You really -need- to update the game benchmarks to include modern day games that can stress modern day cards.

    EDIT: Reach out to game developers and let them know that you need a solid stress test. PTS would be a kick ass way of showing off their stuff. It really is cool software. It just needs benchmarks that can stress modern GPU's. Talk to developers (or publishers) and let them know. Voice your need.
    Last edited by duby229; 05-24-2013 at 07:34 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    EDIT: Reach out to game developers and let them know that you need a solid stress test. PTS would be a kick ass way of showing off their stuff. It really is cool software. It just needs benchmarks that can stress modern GPU's. Talk to developers (or publishers) and let them know. Voice your need.
    There are already Unigine tests in PTS, but Michael never seems to use them for some reason. And then there's a lot of possible games he could test through Steam now, but he doesn't seem interested in adding any of those, either.

    What he's doing now isn't quite as bad as just running glxgears, but it's not much better.

    I still don't think we've gotten a single article about how RadeonSI performs. It's enough to make me think Michael doesn't know how to compile all the different pieces to get it working. It's already up to basically GL3 support, now (through patches on the mailing list). Or maybe Michael just doesn't have any hardware?
    Last edited by smitty3268; 05-24-2013 at 07:43 PM.

Posting Permissions

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