Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Catalyst: Ubuntu 12.10 vs. Windows 7

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

  • frign
    replied
    Originally posted by alexThunder View Post
    I have to add, that I own a Notebook with that HD 4000 and it works ok (XRender for KWin). However, KWin with OpenGL is absolutely not usable (Kubuntu 12.04 with Kernel 3.4).

    Btw. this news is about gaming performance, isn't it?
    I am using DWM myself and don't have any experience with KDE at all. I am wondering, as the HD 4000 even runs Crysis 3 fairly well. You might try to upgrade your RAM if necessary, as this is an important factor to consider.

    Best regards.

    Leave a comment:


  • artivision
    replied
    Intel vs AMD: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...vybridge&num=6

    Leave a comment:


  • alexThunder
    replied
    Originally posted by frign View Post
    The Intel HD Graphics 4000 is already "suitable" for standard 3D-tasks. I completely understand you and your special requirements for high 3D-performance, but many GNU/Linux-users are rather focused on Desktop-tasks and really don't need high graphics performance.
    Stay tuned for Haswell and compare the current Intel graphics with the ancient Intel GMA .

    Best regards.
    I have to add, that I own a Notebook with that HD 4000 and it works ok (XRender for KWin). However, KWin with OpenGL is absolutely not usable (Kubuntu 12.04 with Kernel 3.4).

    Btw. this news is about gaming performance, isn't it?

    Leave a comment:


  • F i L
    replied
    I appriciate these performance comparisons, but please next time, if you can, try and test Gnome-Ubuntu as well. In previous tests Shell has be shown to be faster than Unity/KDE so it might have been nice to see how that compares.

    Leave a comment:


  • frign
    replied
    Originally posted by alexThunder View Post
    I'll stick to AMD as long Intel can't deliver usable 3D-gaming performance. If that changes and if the open source radeon driver doesn't improve significantly until that, I promise I'll switch to Intel.
    The Intel HD Graphics 4000 is already "suitable" for standard 3D-tasks. I completely understand you and your special requirements for high 3D-performance, but many GNU/Linux-users are rather focused on Desktop-tasks and really don't need high graphics performance.
    Stay tuned for Haswell and compare the current Intel graphics with the ancient Intel GMA .

    Best regards.

    Leave a comment:


  • alexThunder
    replied
    Originally posted by frign View Post
    These test results clearly show that Intel is the future for Linux GPU-tasks.
    It might sound a bit unreflected to state this directly, but the current performance-backlog of integrated Intel Graphics will be recovered in the future and companies like Nvidia and ATI, who still offer currently slightly faster binary-blobs, overtaken.
    Now, the reason for that is the property of Open Source- and especially Kernel-development, that companies and individuals have a hard time to maintain and nurture their "commits", when they are not directly implemented into the actual infrastructure and source code of an OSS-project.
    Just imagine the huge manpower required to make sure that the Nvidia and ATI Kernel-modules actually work with the most recent versions of the Kernel. Some of us, including myself, have already experienced how much of a pain it causes to find out, that the proprietary Nvidia-driver doesn't work with the current Kernel version installed. To be fair, these issues lessened over the last few years, and Nvidia has a great way of dealing with that.
    I am not that much of a Gentoo-enthusiast to state that binary-blobs might have a speed disadvantage in comparison to natively-compiled open source alternatives.
    Keeping at the back of your minds, that in case of binary-blobs, the companies' support is endemic for them to work with a dynamically changing project like the Linux Kernel, one might ask what would happen if this support was seized one day.
    In case of open drivers, the case is rather clear. Contrary to that, it would just be a question of time when the actual Nvidia-modules stopped working with the ongoingly changing Kernel.
    Moreover, Linux is not a system one might install for gaming. Windows is great for that, out of question.

    When it comes to choosing between Intel or ATI/Nvidia on your next hardware-purchase, you have to conclude, in which way you want to affect the future of Linux graphics. Binary-blobs work fine, they are faster, they are technically more advanced, even I am using one currently. But in the Linux-world, we also have to look at the ethical properties of this discussion: Which solution is more suitable for a "free" future we all struggle for by using GNU/Linux?

    Thanks for reading (tldr)!
    I'll stick to AMD as long Intel can't deliver usable 3D-gaming performance. If that changes and if the open source radeon driver doesn't improve significantly until that, I promise I'll switch to Intel.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rigaldo
    replied
    Isn't it possible to do a benchmark among the others with only X.org running for"window management"?(well, I mean no window management )
    That would serve as a control group, to see the impact on performance from window managers. And what undirect fullscreen/suspend effects for fullscreen really can do.
    In my opinion, seeing this comparison at least once is more important than comparing to Windows.(not that the last is unimportant, but we must see that too)
    Although there may be difficulties doing this on Phoronix test suite, I'd love to see it.

    If such benchmarks been done already, please excuse, and redirect to them me if you can.

    @asdx

    You're repeating the same stuff we've gone through countless times. It can get a lil bit annoying.

    Leave a comment:


  • yaji
    replied
    Originally posted by asdx
    I don't, I want radeon to improve. Stop wanting the easy way.
    Well I think I'll buy new AMD graphic card just because how awesome Catalyst drivers are

    Leave a comment:


  • dh04000
    replied
    Originally posted by freedam View Post
    There's something that I can't get in Phoronix benchmarks, wasn't Unity continuosly dropping in performances ad behind KDE by a noticeable margin? What happened here?
    I believe "what happened" for three reasons.

    1) The redirect windows option was not clicked for KDE for these tests, so default settings only

    2) ATi cards are so much more powerful than the intel's that are usually shown, that the slow down by unity is not seen as easily in them.

    3) Wasn't a regression with catalyst shown in KDE recently?


    I've not verified any of this, just some ideas.

    Leave a comment:


  • freedam
    replied
    There's something that I can't get in Phoronix benchmarks, wasn't Unity continuosly dropping in performances ad behind KDE by a noticeable margin? What happened here?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X