AMDGPU-PRO 18.50 vs. ROCm 2.0 OpenCL Performance

[cb88]

That cl_mem test, explains a lot..

AMD should put more work on that, curiously the Bandwith was much higher on Rocm, which is good...
Once that cl_mem issue of read/write been solved, rocm will do a Big Jump in Performance.

My wish, for Rocm2.1
Solve the read/writes issue, and please provide a compatibility mode for Rx580( in mobos/CPUs without PCIe Atomics ),
Nvidia also does the same

Actually looks like the benchmark is probably just naive... ROCm 2.0 appears to be optimizing for kernel latency, which is potentially part of why it is faster in other benchs, and which is why read bandwidth is lower but write is unaffected with a naive bencmark (this goes in a queue anyway). Note however that the enqueued Read and Write are both much faster on ROCm.

[tuxd3v]

That cl_mem test, explains a lot..

AMD should put more work on that, curiously the Bandwith was much higher on Rocm, which is good...
Once that cl_mem issue of read/write been solved, rocm will do a Big Jump in Performance.

My wish, for Rocm2.1
Solve the read/writes issue, and please provide a compatibility mode for Rx580( in mobos/CPUs without PCIe Atomics ),
Nvidia also does the same

[tildearrow]

Typos:

The Radeon Software AMDGPU-PRO 18.50 PAL OpenCL driver was benchmarks followed

ROCm 2.0 was generally faster than the the OpenCL driver

more performance tuning as its clear from some of t

[phoronix]

Phoronix: AMDGPU-PRO 18.50 vs. ROCm 2.0 OpenCL Performance

When recently publishing the PlaidML deep learning benchmarks and lczero chess neural network OpenCL tests, some Phoronix readers mentioned they were seeing vastly different results with using the PAL OpenCL driver in AMDGPU-PRO (Radeon Software) compared to using the ROCm compute stack. So for seeing how those two separate AMD OpenCL drivers compare, here are some benchmark results with a Vega GPU while testing ROCm 2.0 and AMDGPU-PRO 18.50.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=27430