Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Quake II RTX Performance For AMD Radeon 6000 Series vs. NVIDIA On Linux

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

  • #11
    At least with the current Radeon Software for Linux 21.10 packaged Vulkan driver, the Vulkan ray-tracing performance is painfully low for NVIDIA's Quake II RTX port on Linux.
    Michael
    Phoronix
    Michael You may want to take another look at that

    Comment


    • #12
      afaik the port was done by nvidia itself. so i am not surprised to see amd loosing big. but hopefully the community will (and is able to) fix this

      i'd like to see a fair comparision.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by bug77 View Post

        Michael
        Phoronix
        Michael You may want to take another look at that
        Everything is correct. Its Nvidias Quake 2 RTX port ran via the Radeon Software driver package that is painfully slow.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Alexmitter View Post

          Everything is correct. Its Nvidias Quake 2 RTX port ran via the Radeon Software driver package that is painfully slow.
          Because Radeon 6000 is known to be on par with Ampere in RTX power and the Radeon driver is beyond reproach, right?
          The code itself is open, I don't see any issues reported about flawed AMD-related implementations. And developers aren't all from Nvidia, I've even found one from Microsoft.

          Comment


          • #15
            nothing new I remember when tessellation comes out, a complete nightmare if we enable it

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by CochainComplex View Post
              We need to wait for second the Raytracing Generation of AMD. Nvidia is already on the second, so they have some points in advance. Hopefully AMD can catch up
              Yep for 6000 series it's well known at this point that AMD is generally faster with Raster Graphics while being roughly in the same state as Nvidia's 2000 series on ray tracing when DLSS isn't enabled, while Nvidia is far ahead on Raytracing... That said right now Ray Tracing doesn't provide much visual benefit and we're going to have to wait a few generations for either vendor to really be good at it.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by CochainComplex View Post
                We need to wait for second the Raytracing Generation of AMD.
                True, but look at the benchmarks again. He also tested a bunch of first the Raytracing Generation of Nvidia cards, and they all did much better than any of AMD's GPUs!

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by bug77 View Post

                  Michael
                  Phoronix
                  Michael You may want to take another look at that
                  I was going to report this, but the port was made by NVIDIA...

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by coder View Post
                    Well, it looks like AMD has their work cut out for them.

                    Should we assume linear speedup, when going down to 1440p or 1080p?

                    A bit more I guess. I was able to play at ~40fps on Linux at 1440p on a non-xt Radeon 6800 when they released 21.10.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post

                      Yep for 6000 series it's well known at this point that AMD is generally faster with Raster Graphics while being roughly in the same state as Nvidia's 2000 series on ray tracing when DLSS isn't enabled, while Nvidia is far ahead on Raytracing... That said right now Ray Tracing doesn't provide much visual benefit and we're going to have to wait a few generations for either vendor to really be good at it.
                      Please, give a look at Metro Exodus (just to name one), that comment was partially understandable in 2018 but today is simply preposterous

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X