Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 50

Thread: Radeon Gallium3D Performance Gets Close To Catalyst On Ubuntu 14.04

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mmstick View Post
    Honestly, NVIDIA performance on Linux doesn't look that great at all either. I've never seen a benchmark that made NVIDIA cards look good -- they all look disappointing to me in comparison to Windows drivers. There's extremely uneven levels of performance with different models -- most of which run much slower than they should be.
    Mid to high end nvidia cards have always run at or near Windows performance for me when comparing like for like (OGL to OGL). YMMV, I may have just been lucky in having the right cards/distribution/etc

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    119

    Default

    On my Kaveri platform with Catalyst 14.1 Linux performance is mostly the same as on Windows (sometimes perf on Ubuntu is ~5% lower than on Windows, but most of time a difference is smaller). Remember that you should compare games/benchmarks supported OpenGL renderer on both Windows and Linux, you shouldn't compare apps which uses OpenGL on Linux and DirectX on Windows.

    Anyway open source drivers performance looks really impressive for HD5k-6k.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nadro View Post
    On my Kaveri platform with Catalyst 14.1 Linux performance is mostly the same as on Windows (sometimes perf on Ubuntu is ~5% lower than on Windows, but most of time a difference is smaller). Remember that you should compare games/benchmarks supported OpenGL renderer on both Windows and Linux, you shouldn't compare apps which uses OpenGL on Linux and DirectX on Windows.

    Anyway open source drivers performance looks really impressive for HD5k-6k.
    Funny.
    I have no idea how people are able to do a real comparision since stuff is completely broken (Portal 2, Sir youre being hunted) or there are other severe bugs like heavy framedrops (Source games and many others).
    I ordered a kaveri but i really miss my Trinity with its OpenSource drivers.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
    Mid to high end nvidia cards have always run at or near Windows performance for me when comparing like for like (OGL to OGL). YMMV, I may have just been lucky in having the right cards/distribution/etc
    Before the 310 driver some game (SSam3) would run significantly slower on linux.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xeekei View Post
    How the hell did AMD/ATI manage to screw up the performance of the Catalyst driver on Linux compared to Windows? From what I've heard, they're supposed to be the same codebase. NVidia doesn't have this problem so it's obviously not inherit to the Linux platform. 80% of the WIndows driver is pretty significant.
    The linux opengl stack is as fast as the windows one.
    But AMDs opengl stack is only about 80% of their direct3d performance.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ObiWan View Post
    But AMDs opengl stack is only about 80% of their direct3d performance.
    It's depend on how renderer is implemented - which OpenGL features are used. It's not hard to write faster OpenGL renderer than Direct3D, I can say even that with OpenGL you are able to prepare renderer with very low CPU overhead like with Mantle. It's not AMD fault that many developres still use old OpenGL 2.1 features (Shader Model 3.0 era). With OpenGL 4.x features this API is like a beast, CPU overhead is really low

    You can try to check independent OpenGL tech demos or write code myself and next compare results on Windows and Linux. In those tests you will see that performance on Windows is mostly the same as on Linux.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    228

    Default

    Performance is close (if we accept that ~20% is not HUGE diefferrence).. What about quality??

    I would prefer 50% of Catalyst performance with equal (in-game) quality, than 100% Catalyst performance with artifacts in most of the (Steam) games.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by verde View Post
    Performance is close (if we accept that ~20% is not HUGE diefferrence).. What about quality??

    I would prefer 50% of Catalyst performance with equal (in-game) quality, than 100% Catalyst performance with artifacts in most of the (Steam) games.
    Rendering issues are becoming rarer and rarer. Most games can be run -- OpenGL 3.3 with some 4.x features. Anti-aliasing (MSAA) and anisotropic filtering are supported -- use them.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Calinou View Post
    Rendering issues are becoming rarer and rarer. Most games can be run -- OpenGL 3.3 with some 4.x features. Anti-aliasing (MSAA) and anisotropic filtering are supported -- use them.
    Sure. If it starts at all.
    Catalyst 14.1 isn't even able to play videos without crashing X. Setting render method to opengl helps but this doesn't rise the quality.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Barcelona, Spain
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kemosabe View Post
    Sure. If it starts at all.
    Catalyst 14.1 isn't even able to play videos without crashing X. Setting render method to opengl helps but this doesn't rise the quality.
    Catalyst have serious lag after 30 hours of use..., radeon r600 can't play flash with vdpau , is totally broken, and I have random freeze with google chrome if I use gpu aceleration.

Posting Permissions

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