Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 57

Thread: AMD APU On Linux: Gallium3D Can Be 80%+ As Fast As Catalyst

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pawlerson View Post
    Is this true with nvidia?
    Sorry, I don't know. Should've said "all AMD Linux drivers".

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oibaf View Post
    Nice article, thanks !

    ... and before anyone asking about llvm 3.4 (mesa c4cf48 used in the test was compiled with 3.3), see the discussion here: http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...-Upgrades-Easy
    So, wouldn't it be even faster with gcc? (llvm compiles faster, but gcc produces faster code)

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pawlerson View Post
    Is this true with nvidia?
    I think it is too, but it's not like you'll be below 60 FPS with most modern graphic cards. It is more CPU than GPU dependent.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ua=42 View Post
    Ah yes, the i7-4950hq, which costs $750, is slightly faster than the AMD A10 which costs $99. So yeah. If money is no object, you can get an intel system that can beat AMD's APU graphically, but if you are on a budget, you can get something that is almost as fast for $650 less.
    For computational workloads (including opencl) the Intel was much faster, not just a little faster. Graphically it was only a little faster iirc.

  5. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carewolf View Post
    So, wouldn't it be even faster with gcc? (llvm compiles faster, but gcc produces faster code)
    Mesa requires llvm libraries (for llvmpipe and radeonsi, for example), but all the code is compiled with gcc only.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Calinou View Post
    I think it is too, but it's not like you'll be below 60 FPS with most modern graphic cards. It is more CPU than GPU dependent.
    Yeah, you're right. However I experience strange stuttering with nvidia drivers in Valve games. I had similar experience with catalyst, but never with Open Source radeon drivers.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Kansas.
    Posts
    259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liam View Post
    For computational workloads (including opencl) the Intel was much faster, not just a little faster. Graphically it was only a little faster iirc.
    Ah. I thought we were talking about graphics. Not opencl. Two very different use cases.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ua=42 View Post
    I understand the wanting a longer battery life. But for me I bought an a4 laptop and spent an extra $100 for an extended battery and when I'm browsing the net or typing I can get 8hours of run time. If i'm playing 3d games I get 4 hours.

    I'm kind of curious how many more hours the intel gets for the $$$$ I saved.
    Not much, most of the energy consumed in a laptop is actually from the display.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mmstick View Post
    Not much, most of the energy consumed in a laptop is actually from the display.
    Actually a lot. I have a Thinkpad T420 with Optimimus. It gets 7hours on battery in Windows and about 2hours in Linux by default. The main difference is that the GPU is not throttled down in Linux. If I force the GPU off I get 5 hours on battery in Linux. So disabling the Nvidia GPU (that wasn't even used), makes the battery life go from 2hours to 5. It is a MAJOR drain and makes bigger impact than turning off the screen.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liam View Post
    For computational workloads (including opencl) the Intel was much faster, not just a little faster. Graphically it was only a little faster iirc.
    If you want to drop $750 on a CPU. Most won't.

Posting Permissions

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