Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: RadeonSI GLAMOR 2D Performance vs. Catalyst

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pontostroy View Post
    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...SO-1401178PL34

    suse 13.1 kde+ radeon 7790+ gtk2-oxygen
    Buttons are so slow.


    Btw:


    Catalyst is definitely not using OpenGL output or uses some scheduling/grouping/buffering mechanism, minimizing the context switch on every command.
    They are outside of being "comparable".

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    586

    Default

    And I always keep hearing Catalyst sucks at 2d!

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zanny View Post
    And I always keep hearing Catalyst sucks at 2d!
    Problem is that "2D" is a catch-all term covering a wide range of different things, from line-drawing to video playback to the graphics memory manager's ability to deal with a lot of simultaneous graphics activities (eg compositor plus desktop plus apps). Each of these involves different code, different hardware, and different levels of suckage across the different HW and driver offerings.

    My impression was that Catalyst *used* to suck at the kind of 2D things measured here but that was greatly improved over the last couple of years.

    The depressing thing is that software rendering into a shadow buffer still seems to be the fastest for *these* 2D operations, although of course that falls down if you try to *scroll* a big screen with software rendering. When you see reports that "switching to EXA" makes 2D operations go faster with radeonSI that's not really HW accelerated EXA they're running AFAIK, it's software rendering into a shadow buffer (which is really fast for small operations, which is what you get on typical 2D benchmarks).

    Of course the downside of switching to EXA with GCN hardware is losing 3D acceleration as well and falling back to llvmpipe. The real solution is to improve glamor so that more drawing functions are hardware accelerated rather than SW rendering without shadowfb, and that is happening now.
    Last edited by bridgman; 01-18-2014 at 12:41 PM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spittie View Post
    He's using those repository (created by him!) to get the latest mesa/llvm from git, and the latest kernel rc.
    http://download.opensuse.org/reposit...openSUSE_13.1/
    http://download.opensuse.org/reposit...openSUSE_13.1/
    ah pontostroy - nice
    I am using his stuff myself
    overlooked his name

    so why then are the differences so big?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Madison, WI, USA
    Posts
    884

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    The real solution is to improve glamor so that more drawing functions are hardware accelerated rather than SW rendering without shadowfb, and that is happening now.
    Yeah, the slowest things in gtkperf are line drawing and the circles test, mostly because their fallbacks are unoptimized. There have been recent attempts to improve the worst case scenarios for line drawing (which was making certain workflows unusable), but I haven't seen anything for the circles test yet.

    Honestly, I'm not sure how much effort I should put into it, given that it sounds like Eric Anholt has some pretty major optimization work that he's preparing for review/merging in the hopefully-near future which will do much more than just incremental improvements to parts of glamor.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tomtomme View Post
    so why then are the differences so big?
    I'm not sure, but it won't stop me from hypothesizing

    Michael's system is an APU while Pontostroy's using a dedicated GPU. The APU has a core clock of 720MHz and the RAM is DDR3 clocked at 2133MHz. The APU is also sharing the 5MB of L2 cache. The 7790 has a core clock 1050MHz and uses 2GB of dedicated DDR5 memory clocked at 1500MHz (effective clock of 6400Mhz).

    The CPU and GPU cores on the APU are sharing the thermal head room, though I don't think the CPU is using much of it during these benchmarks. More benchmarks would be needed to see if it is a hardware limitation or software regression.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pontostroy View Post
    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...SO-1401178PL34

    suse 13.1 kde+ radeon 7790+ gtk2-oxygen
    Ubuntu 13.10 stock + lowly Pentium G840 (Sandy Bridge HD Graphics): http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...SO-1401184SO59

    Spoiler alert: the Pentium wins 12 out of 25 tests and only comes out last in 1.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Veerappan View Post
    ...but I haven't seen anything for the circles test yet.
    Serious question -- other than 2D benchmarks, are circles actually used any more ?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    153

    Default

    You use SNA, intel+glamor up to 100 times slower than intel+sna
    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...SO-1401199SO68

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pontostroy View Post
    You use SNA, intel+glamor up to 100 times slower than intel+sna
    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...SO-1401199SO68
    One, those aren't that bad in most cases. Two, I wonder if an Intel Pentium APU would outperform a glamor top end AMD card due to the performance gap.

Posting Permissions

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