Open-Source Radeon HD 6000 Series Still Borked

[curaga]

PM'd. Ten characters is a lot.

[darkbasic]

Anyway even 13 fps is nothing! With an OpenGL 2.1 rendering and a 1024*768 resolution it should be able to do more than 100 fps with proprietary drivers, so it's ten times slower, probably even more.
Fortunately mesa does not still support OpenGL 4.1, otherwise it will be a slideshow

[curaga]

Do you have a link to show that? In http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...e_heaven&num=2 even the best card, 4890 with the blob, did not break 80fps at 1024x768.

Would the 3.x vs 2.1 codepath really have that much impact?

[darkbasic]

Ok. 100 fps.
- Consider the rendering is better than OpenGL 2.1.
- Consider it is 1280x1024 instead of 1024x768
- Consider it has 16x Anisotropic filtering while mesa doesn't support it
- Consider it has 4xAA while mesa doesn't support anti aliasing.
- Consider the final FPS score is lower than a screenshot because sometimes there are big fps drop.

I was wrong, mesa is 30 times slower at least.

[crazycheese]

Do you have a link to show that? In http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...e_heaven&num=2 even the best card, 4890 with the blob, did not break 80fps at 1024x768.

Would the 3.x vs 2.1 codepath really have that much impact?

4890 is garbage heatgun. It was an attempt to fight against gtx280/285 until evergreen showed up and it was partially successful - 5870, given optimized driver and application (the way that vliw5 engine is eff?ciently utilized) should outperform 4890 at least by factor 2.5

But of course, opensource driver lacks features and there is no optimization, hence this results. Still, you have a card from manufacturer that pays opensource development, which is very good.

[crazycheese]

Ok. 100 fps.
- Consider the rendering is better than OpenGL 2.1.
- Consider it is 1280x1024 instead of 1024x768
- Consider it has 16x Anisotropic filtering while mesa doesn't support it
- Consider it has 4xAA while mesa doesn't support anti aliasing.
- Consider the final FPS score is lower than a screenshot because sometimes there are big fps drop.

I was wrong, mesa is 30 times slower at least.

Hey, mesa is opensource! All the drawbacks you listed require huge crew of driver developers with access to hardware. Damn, 1 year ago I had to disable noveau, to use nvidia driver, because noveau and its kms simply caused kernel panic on my gf parents machine with 8300 igp.
What AMD could do, is put many many more people behind opensource driver - and associate them the way they associate their closed source development with card sells. They refuse so far.

By the way, that phenom II of yours is big bottleneck.

[smitty3268]

Do you have a link to show that? In http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...e_heaven&num=2 even the best card, 4890 with the blob, did not break 80fps at 1024x768.

Would the 3.x vs 2.1 codepath really have that much impact?

I don't think there is a 2.1 vs 3.x codepath difference. It requires at least some GL 3 features, which Mesa has implemented, so I doubt they'd go to the trouble of creating alternative paths for other stuff. Maybe someone can point to a specific extension that Mesa is still lacking - the tesselation in 4.0 and AA are the main things I know of that aren't implemented yet, and that screenshot also shows tesselation off in the proprietary driver test.

Edit: I suppose they're probably using some geometry shaders as well. Forgot about that.

[darkbasic]

Hey, mesa is opensource! All the drawbacks you listed require huge crew of driver developers with access to hardware.

I know it very well and I knew it before buying every card, I bought them because proprietary drivers are no alternative and I'm already quite satisfied anyway.

[curaga]

Ok. 100 fps.
- Consider the rendering is better than OpenGL 2.1.
- Consider it is 1280x1024 instead of 1024x768
- Consider it has 16x Anisotropic filtering while mesa doesn't support it
- Consider it has 4xAA while mesa doesn't support anti aliasing.
- Consider the final FPS score is lower than a screenshot because sometimes there are big fps drop.

I was wrong, mesa is 30 times slower at least.

- different OS
- not OGL path

That does show a big difference, but results from the linux blob would be more comparable.

[darkbasic]

20 fps in openarena with latest graphic stack and my HD5870.

Even before today's update it was too slow, Michael confirmed it:



If the 6870 does 153 fps, the 5870 should be even better because it's a faster card.
I got something like ~ 70 fps @1024x768 normal quality.