Originally posted by Qaridarium
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
AMD vs NVIDIA drivers, that big difference?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by LinuxID10T View PostWhen I originally tested the first Unigine for linux, tesselation did work on my 4650 or 4350, however, it was BEYOND SLOW. Now, tesselation on those older cards is broken.
Comment
-
Originally posted by bridgman View PostAndre just committed a fix related to lodbias (lodbias affects which level of the mipmap is selected when texturing), not sure how much of the mipmap issue that addreses.
The commit looks like it was a pain to track down, kudos on that.
Comment
-
We haven't gotten as far as looking at the tesselator yet re: working out programming documentation, ie the only issues so far are time and competing priorities. I don't expect that IP issues will get in the way other than the usual time-consuming process of ensuring that there aren't any serious IP issuesTest signature
Comment
-
Originally posted by bridgman View PostWe haven't gotten as far as looking at the tesselator yet re: working out programming documentation, ie the only issues so far are time and competing priorities. I don't expect that IP issues will get in the way other than the usual time-consuming process of ensuring that there aren't any serious IP issues
Comment
-
Originally posted by bridgman View PostHardware Acceleration on Evergreen/HD5xxx is almost at the same level as 6xx/7xx, with the caveat that acceleration is only supported when running with KMS. As of yesterday there were known issues related to mipmap support and stencil buffer handling.
Andre just committed a fix related to lodbias (lodbias affects which level of the mipmap is selected when texturing), not sure how much of the mipmap issue that addreses. Looks like the fix should get rid of some unpredictable behaviour, so at worst it will probably make the remaining issues easier to diagnose and fix.
I read this:
While the new kernel versions mainly correct minor bugs, X.org's next generation X Server offers a range of improvements. Various code segments released by AMD developers allow the X.org open source drivers for Radeon GPUs to utilise the 2D and 3D acceleration features available with Radeon series 5000 graphics cards
I guess that's more open source driver related but for me, I'm wondering about the options of using the binary v.s. open driver. Not a question just stating what I'm mulling over.
Comment
-
KMS is work in progress?
There's a lot of discussion and topics of disabling KMS for various reasons including getting a black screen on bootup.
If there's major revisions of the kernel, is KMS particularly effected?
The article was a bit off near the end... it talked about the Evergreen code being "still located in various development branches", but there is only one branch (evergreen accel branch of xf86-video-ati, created only because there was a release in progress out of master at the time) and all of the other code is in master for the 3D and kernel drivers. I guess maybe it was saying "the code is scattered across all these projects" but that's just how the open source driver code is managed.
I guess that's more open source driver related but for me, I'm wondering about ...Test signature
Comment
-
Originally posted by bridgman View PostI don't really understand the question about KMS being a work in progress. What I said was that the acceleration code only includes code paths for KMS.
Having the ability to disable KMS and fall back to UMS is handy if a problem with KMS is discovered on a specific system, but the developers would much rather spend their time dealing with KMS issues than duplicating effort to maintain UMS code paths with DRI1 and memory management in the userspace code rather than kernel. When KMS was first launched it only worked on a small set of systems (like all new things) but a year later it is the default for most new distro releases and problems are becoming relatively rare.
Originally posted by bridgman View PostKMS should be almost completely independent of kernel changes AFAIK -- it's really the memory management and the code that was already in the kernel which is most sensitive to kernel updates.
Originally posted by bridgman View PostI guess maybe it was saying "the code is scattered across all these projects" but that's just how the open source driver code is managed.
Originally posted by bridgman View PostWe were talking about the open drivers, so that's fine -- at least I assumed you were talking about the open drivers because of the reference to hardware acceleration. The fglrx driver had hardware acceleration for Evergreen when the family was launched.
Thanks for the replies. I hope those are questions that weren't answered before. I also want to assure anyone who's tired of my questions that I'd do my best to contribute if I ultimately buy an ATI card.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Glaucous View PostI've been using AMD/ATI HD4870 on Kubuntu x64 for a while now, and then I decided to try out (borrowed) NVIDIA GTX 260 - which is a slightly worse card (on Windows). I also tried NVIDIA 8600 GT which is a quite crappy card.
The results were quite sad, and I'm considering that I failed (Multiple times? Seems odd.) with the AMD/ATI drivers. Please note that glxgears isn't much of a benchmark, but it does show me something.
fgl_glxgears
5500 FPS NVIDIA GTX 260
2100 FPS NVIDIA 8600 GT
2200 FPS ATI HD4870
glxgears
110k frames / 5 seconds - GTX 260
40k frames / 5 seconds - HD4870 and 8600 GT
Here sure is a big difference.
I also tried Wine World of Warcraft, which resulted in about 2-3 times more FPS on GTX 260. And the FPS on 8600 GT was as good or better than HD4870.
I did try a small particle OpenGL program I wrote, which resulted in about two times more particles at higher FPS - on both NVIDIA cards (CPU bound) compared to HD4870.
Do anyone else have any experience using ATI and NVIDIA? It feels like the performance on ATI should be better than this - or is this a common problem?
I'm right now considering buying a NVIDIA Fermi card (as soon as Coolbits is working, and ETA yet?).
NVIDIA Drivers:
256.53
ATI Drivers:
10.8, 10.7, 10.5.
nVidia knows how to write decent drivers, while ATI fails miserably at driver implementations. ATI's linux/X drivers are particularly bad, while their Windows drivers are mostly acceptable.
fglrx has been one long trip to bugginess for me with linux, which means this is my first ATI GPU in almost 10y and the experience has been less than pleasing.
Comment
Comment