Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: AMD RadeonSI Graphics Driver Still Troublesome On Linux

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,793

    Default AMD RadeonSI Graphics Driver Still Troublesome On Linux

    Phoronix: AMD RadeonSI Graphics Driver Still Troublesome On Linux

    Back in June I ran some RadeonSI Gallium3D benchmarks showing the performance had a ways to improve, but sadly the situation hasn't improved months. There's been progress on the RadeonSI Gallium3D driver and from the kernel side with Radeon DRM improvements and new features, but in testing out the latest code it's still a buggy experience and the performance isn't close to matching the closed-source AMD Catalyst Linux graphics driver for Radeon HD 7000 series hardware. At least though for some Linux games we're now in the range of 50% the OpenGL speed of Catalyst.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=19114

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    289

    Default

    Don't worry, probably in five years we will have fully working open source drivers for the HD 7000 series...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    221

    Default ???

    what the point to use kernel without dpm enable?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    111

    Default

    As it seems that AMD is focusing more Linux-related efforts to the open source module, what is the implication for the future? If the FOSS module is the future of AMD drivers on Linux, does this mean that acceptable performance on the radeon module will always be 2 or 3 generations behind the latest and greatest?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    36

    Default Tropics

    What was the problem with Tropics? It works fine for me.

    Also, which version of LLVM was used for these tests? 3.4 SVN is recommended for Mesa master.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,371

    Default

    You can see the effects of the clocks between the 3.8 and 3.11 and 3.12 tests. Prior to 3.11, the kernel left the clocks at their boot up levels which are usually very low. In 3.11, the default clocks are now programmed. The default clocks vary from board to board. Sometimes they are low like the boot up clocks, sometimes they are higher like on older dGPUs. So depending on your board, you are not likely to see much of a difference in performance if your particular board already has high default clocks. You will save power however since the clocks will be reduced when the GPU is not busy.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    68

    Default

    For us with a lack of understanding. Just what pieces are missing/needs to be done in the free driver to make perform as well as the closed driver?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    933

    Default

    Micheal is there any way to do a single test (for example Xonotic) when benchmarking an openbenchmarking.org ID (1309171-SO-AMDRADEON66)?
    Did you receive my last e-mail? I wasn't able to submit the results...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CrvenaZvezda View Post
    For us with a lack of understanding. Just what pieces are missing/needs to be done in the free driver to make perform as well as the closed driver?
    Mostly porting of additional hardware and software optimizations from r600g to radeonsi. Of the top of my head:
    - hyperZ support
    - fast color clears
    - enabling 2D tiling by default on SI (can probably done now that mesa 9.2 has been released)
    - using the sDMA engines for blits and uploads
    - shader compiler improvements

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darkbasic View Post
    Micheal is there any way to do a single test (for example Xonotic) when benchmarking an openbenchmarking.org ID (1309171-SO-AMDRADEON66)?
    Did you receive my last e-mail? I wasn't able to submit the results...
    No I didn't get any email. Michael at phoronix.com.

    Not without hand editing the XML, though would be a good feature to come up with a good way to add that support, it would be easy but would just be a matter of thinking of a good way to expose/input that request to only benchmark a select portion(s) of the comparison.

Posting Permissions

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