AMD Radeon RX 5700 / RX 5700XT Linux Gaming Benchmarks

[skeevy420]

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.

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

While that 19.30 release says it's for Navi only, I can confirm that the Pro Vulkan from it works with my 580. I've only ran it with the official Proton 4.2 release and Hitman 2, but it was one of the smoothest Hitman 2 run's I've ever had (once the shader cache generated)...enabled VK_ICD_FILENAMES=/opt/amdgpu-pro/etc/vulkan/icd.d/amd_icd64.json globally.

aufkrawall I found the time to try my 580 with dc=0 to see if it fixed that odd "stick gets stuck turning" issue and the mouse and animation lag make my desktop almost unusable and games weren't any better. Unfortunately, setting amdgpu.dc=0 might not be an acceptable fix for that vsync issue for 580 users.

Used kernel 5.1.16, Mesa 19.1.1, AMDVLK-Pro 19.30, RADV from 19.1.1, AMDVLK 2.93.0606.g245f34b-1(current Manjaro version), Proton 4.2...using Official Proton because I've been having issues with my TKG builds since Wine 4.12 and reverting back to Staging 4.11r6 or 4.10r11, known good builds for me, didn't work...not sure if it's Wine or DXVK or what causing my issues there...Also had page flip/vsync enabled for everything.

[smitty3268]

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.

Perhaps I should clarify. What I meant was that no one at AMD cares about somebody whining about it on the Phoronix forums. The feature will either come or not based on whether AMD thinks it makes business sense, and I'm certain it's something that is at least on their radar. But 1 person repeatedly posting the same complaint here on every AMD thread isn't going to do anything one way or the other.

[coder]

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.

[coder]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[tildearrow]

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".

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.

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..

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.

[smitty3268]

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.

[tildearrow]

I guarantee you no one from AMD cares.

Which is why I will abandon AMD as soon as Xe gets released.

[smitty3268]

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.

[bridgman]

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.

[bridgman]

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.

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