Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Radeon RX 5700 / RX 5700XT Linux Gaming Benchmarks

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    i have no idea, it's not me demanding that amd must stop any work on amdvlk right now because i hear voices in my head
    Way to try and put words in my mouth that i never said. I don't care if AMD works on amdvlk or not. I'm just saying their product right now is pathetic.
    no, giant cluster is for example when dxvk apps are randomly crashing on failed allocation, but that's not amd
    If AMD had launched without a windows driver they would have been the laughingstock of the internet, and it would have been deserved. People would have been fired and it would have rightly been considered a disaster. The fact that none of that is going to happen for amdvlk just goes to show exactly how much they care about it.
    windows support is surely meaningful for amd and 99% of their users do care about it
    And the sky is blue. You seem to try to be putting words in my mouth again, but since you never actually claimed i said that I guess I'll pass on this for now.
    it's a linux binary. source code runs on windows and is developed by windows devs. though not compiler yet, but they are aiming to use it too eventually
    It has no DirectX support, if you think that's going to replace their windows drivers you are insane. They will have their actual windows drivers, and then they will cherry pick code commits out of that into a sanitized copy they have named amdvlk. That's what the project has always been. That's what it will be for the forseeable future. Windows is always going to get the unfiltered upstream version, not the sanitized cherry picked version.
    who told you this bullshit? of course it does run navi hardware, they just can't show you its sources yet
    Umm, Michael here at phoronix told me, and if i had hardware it'd be easy enough to check by downloading the driver from AMD's website. Anything hidden in a vault somewhere and unaccessible by users is completely pointless.
    which comes without source code, tadam
    And yet you're claiming that amdvlk is that source code, so which is it? Is amdvlk the source code for the windows driver, or not?
    Last edited by smitty3268; 09 July 2019, 10:44 PM.

    Comment


    • #52
      Article keeps talking about how the Navi drivers are still early and performance isn't up to snuff yet-- but the 5700 seems consistently a bit faster than the 2060, and the 5700 XT seems consistently a bit faster than the 2070. Seems like the Linux performance is exactly where it should be. I don't see the problem, am I missing something?

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
        And yet you're claiming that amdvlk is that source code, so which is it? Is amdvlk the source code for the windows driver, or not?
        As far as I know "AMDVLK" is the name for the open source (Linux) version of the closed source (Linux/Windows) Vulkan driver. The closed source Linux Vulkan driver includes Navi support AFAIK - the only thing still in progress is generating & testing/fixing an open source version from the closed source tree.

        The 19.30 driver has two sets of packages for Vulkan - pro and non-pro. The pro packages include Navi support while AFAIK the non-pro packages do not.

        Code:
        vulkan-amdgpu_19.30-838629_i386.deb
        vulkan-amdgpu-pro_19.30-838629_i386.deb
        vulkan-amdgpu_19.30-838629_amd64.deb
        vulkan-amdgpu-pro_19.30-838629_amd64.deb
        Last edited by bridgman; 09 July 2019, 11:13 PM.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
          They will have their actual windows drivers, and then they will cherry pick code commits out of that into a sanitized copy they have named amdvlk. That's what the project has always been. That's what it will be for the forseeable future. Windows is always going to get the unfiltered upstream version, not the sanitized cherry picked version.
          Remember there are three AMD Vulkan drivers, not two:

          - Windows (closed source / unfiltered upstream with proprietary shader compiler)
          - Linux PRO (closed source / unfiltered upstream with proprietary shader compiler)
          - Linux open aka AMDVLK (sanitized version with LLVM shader compiler)

          The first two shipped on launch day; the third is still being worked on.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by bridgman View Post

            Remember there are three AMD Vulkan drivers, not two:

            - Windows (closed source / unfiltered upstream with proprietary shader compiler)
            - Linux PRO (closed source / unfiltered upstream with proprietary shader compiler)
            - Linux open aka AMDVLK (sanitized version with LLVM shader compiler)

            The first two shipped on launch day; the third is still being worked on.
            I know. All I said was that the third can't be taken seriously right now and that AMD should be embarrassed by that. I know they aren't, and that's the problem.
            Last edited by smitty3268; 09 July 2019, 11:33 PM.

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
              I guarantee you no one from AMD cares.
              Which is why I will abandon AMD as soon as Xe gets released.

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by tildearrow View Post

                Which is why I will abandon AMD as soon as Xe gets released.
                I'm skeptical of Xe based on Intel's history, but hopeful that I'll be pleasantly surprised. If they put out a competitive product I'll definitely be moving to it as well.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  I was just curious why tildearrow seems to be so obsessed with 4:4:4,
                  Please note that I only use 4:4:4 on screen recordings and intermediate material. Which means I am not "so obsessed".

                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  which isn't even well-supported among player software/hardware.
                  False. mpv and VLC both work fine with 4:4:4 material. Furthermore, this is for in-house usage. I don't distribute my screen recordings at all, and if I do, I must use chroma subsampling.

                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  It's intended as a pro format, for the reasons I mentioned. So, I wondered if he fits that userbase, or else why he is so obsessed with it.
                  And you know professional often delivers higher quality than typical consumer:
                  - I plan to buy a professional card and workstation motherboard in a far future, because I need reliability.
                  - When I take pictures, I'd prefer to have manual control of the camera to ensure a lack of image noise.
                  - I plan to use an audio interface for sound in a future.
                  - I don't just use PulseAudio alone. I use JACK to achieve low audio latency, even for games..

                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  In my experience, it's much more important to get the correct Y/C phase and use quality chroma decimation and reconstruction. If you get those things right, you won't notice the lower bandwidth of chroma, which is why chroma sub-sampling is nearly universal among video codecs.
                  That is true for videos of an environment, but NOT true for screen captures. Which is why I adopted 4:4:4 for a time. I am going to provide an example:



                  As you can see, the "Samples" icon is washed out, the volume columns' text have a tiny green halo, and the peak meter in the top bar is monochrome as a result of the 4:2:0 chroma subsampling.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    First, thank you for explaining your position. This stands in stark contrast to a certain other poster in this thread, who I suspect seeks only to derive personal amusement from our discord.

                    Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
                    Please note that I only use 4:4:4 on screen recordings and intermediate material. Which means I am not "so obsessed".
                    What I meant by "obsessed" is "unusually preoccupied", which I think is a fair characterization of your post that I originally quoted.

                    Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
                    False. mpv and VLC both work fine with 4:4:4 material.
                    I didn't say it's not supported, just that it's not well-supported. I should've said "widely-supported", as many consumer devices do not support it.

                    Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
                    And you know professional often delivers higher quality than typical consumer:
                    - I plan to buy a professional card and workstation motherboard in a far future, because I need reliability.
                    - When I take pictures, I'd prefer to have manual control of the camera to ensure a lack of image noise.
                    - I plan to use an audio interface for sound in a future.
                    - I don't just use PulseAudio alone. I use JACK to achieve low audio latency, even for games..
                    This argument actually undermines your case. It sounds like you're blindly saying that "professional stuff is better - and I like better - therefore, I want it".

                    The point of it being a professional format isn't because it's simply better, but rather that professionals have use cases that involve specific post-processing operations that would be hampered by low-bandwidth chroma.


                    Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
                    I am going to provide an example:
                    How was this produced? I am suspicious of the chroma decimation used. Further, there are clear DCT-style compression artifacts that suggest degradation possibly caused by quantization - not just band-limiting and interpolation.

                    I'll grant you that simply using 4:4:4 is an easy way to eliminate the entire issue of the low-pass filter and interpolation quality, although you're still susceptible to stronger quantization of the chroma channels.

                    I should add that I often use (4:2:0-sampled) JPEGs for screen grabs, since they frequently compress better than PNG, even with no observable loss in quality. I don't believe I've seen the sort of artifacts in your example, though I'm not usually looking for them.
                    Last edited by coder; 10 July 2019, 01:49 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                      I guarantee you no one from AMD cares.
                      I guarantee you someone at AMD does!

                      AMD makes workstation cards for PCs and Power Macs. Video is a very important use case, for some of these folks. You can be certain that 4:4:4 support is somewhere in the queue, but it's easy to forget just how small AMD is, compared with its rivals.

                      BTW, it's actually quite juvenile to assign intentionality to actions and behaviors. If you ask little kids why someone they're observing is doing something, the answer you're most likely to get is that the subject likes the activity. If you ask them why they don't do another thing, they're likely to believe it's because the subject doesn't like or want to do the other activity - not that the subject is merely a victim of circumstance, in either case.

                      You really shouldn't assert that AMD doesn't care, unless that's either their official line or you at least have such a statement from an authoritative insider, like bridgman . Anything less would be childish.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X