Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Catalyst Linux OpenGL Driver Now Faster Than Windows Driver In Some Tests

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

  • dungeon
    replied
    Originally posted by log0 View Post
    Here is a post about GL vs D3D performance with Unigine benchmarks: http://www.g-truc.net/post-0547.html
    Yeah but that is near 2 years old and drivers always change and those numbers may differ now .

    For me now on low power APU on Windows 7: Unigine Valley DX11 is fastest, DX9 is 3% slower and OpenGL is another 3% slower. So all in all (remember this is with omega driver, earlier drivers had been more about 10% diff) current differences of measured frame rate between DX11 and OpenGL are just 6% for me

    Leave a comment:


  • log0
    replied
    Here is a post about GL vs D3D performance with Unigine benchmarks: http://www.g-truc.net/post-0547.html

    NVIDIA OpenGL implementation is about 25% and 32% slower than Direct3D 9 implementation, 30% and 33% slower than Direct3D 11 implementation on respectively Valley and Heaven."
    ...
    AMD OpenGL implementation is about 7% and 9% slower than Direct3D 9 implementation, 8% and 13% slower than Direct3D 11 implementation on respectively Valley and Heaven.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    Originally posted by eydee View Post
    Because it shows you what your hardware is actually capable of and how much money you lose because of bad optimization.
    No, it doesn't. D3D is sufficiently different from both GL and HW that it doesn't tell that, not even talking about differently built engines for each.

    You want to know what the hw can do? Look at specs and low-level microbenchmarks.

    Leave a comment:


  • mmstick
    replied
    Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
    Why would this be comparable at all? OGL and DX engines are typically completely separate
    First, you would have to define the meaning of separate. When a game or benchmark provides OGL and D3D rendering paths, they typically offer equivalent levels of features, wherein D3D11 = OGL4 and D3D10 = OGL3. AMD's Catalyst drivers are heavily optimized for D3D, leaving OGL performance as an afterthought. Therefore, the performance that a benchmark or game receives in D3D on Catalyst is what we should be striving for, a milestone, with OGL drivers on both Linux and Windows.

    What these benchmarks tell us are that if you were running an OpenGL game or application in Windows, you'll gain a slight performance boost by running the same game/app in Linux (if available). What they do not demonstrate, however, is how much of a performance hit someone would take if they were playing D3D games/apps and were to switch to playing them on Linux with OGL. At the end of the day, you may parade around that you've defeated the Catalyst OGL performance on Windows with Gallium3D and Catalyst on Linux (not surprising), but the bigger picture remains that we are likely very far behind the level of performance that we could have. This is an article in regards to performance compared to Windows, so it would only be natural to see it compared against the native API on that platform as well, D3D.

    tldr; we need to know where we stand in comparison.

    Leave a comment:


  • nanonyme
    replied
    Originally posted by clementl View Post
    The Unigine just doesn't have a greatly optimized OpenGL renderer. Even with Nvidia GPU's, which have superb OpenGL drivers, Unigine performs quite a bit less than with the DirectX renderer.
    I'm not sure I'd agree with superb but sure, they are pretty fast.

    Leave a comment:


  • eydee
    replied
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    And why should we, Linux users, give a hoot about D3D performance on Windows?
    Because it shows you what your hardware is actually capable of and how much money you lose because of bad optimization.

    Originally posted by clementl View Post
    The Unigine just doesn't have a greatly optimized OpenGL renderer. Even with Nvidia GPU's, which have superb OpenGL drivers, Unigine performs quite a bit less than with the DirectX renderer.
    Are you sure a 333% difference is something negligible? Someone with an nvidia card, please post some windows scores to compare...

    Leave a comment:


  • clementl
    replied
    Originally posted by eydee View Post
    The problem is that OpenGL under windows is just as unoptimized in Catalyst as under linux. If you run Heaven in OpenGL vs D3D mode, the latter one gets much better scores.

    Some tests I ran yesterday:

    Heaven, OpenGL, High quality, No tessellation, AA off, 1080p: 249 points
    Heaven, DX11, High quality, No tessellation, AA off, 1080p: 829 points

    This is using a 6850, Catalyst Omega, Win8.1 x64

    The funniest thing is that the OpenGL driver is messed up so much that Ultra settings with Extreme tessellation actually yield a better score (265). AMD only "optimizes" for Doom 3 and Rage, and everything else is left in the dust.
    The Unigine just doesn't have a greatly optimized OpenGL renderer. Even with Nvidia GPU's, which have superb OpenGL drivers, Unigine performs quite a bit less than with the DirectX renderer.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    And why should we, Linux users, give a hoot about D3D performance on Windows?

    Leave a comment:


  • Daktyl198
    replied
    Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
    Why would this be comparable at all? OGL and DX engines are typically completely separate
    Yes, but most people programming games/etc for Windows are using D3D. We can claim faster OpenGL performance on Linux, but if the overall performance is still noticeably less than DX on Windows, then people aren't going to take us seriously yet (especially since OGL is harder to program in, making it slower AND more difficult...).

    If the OGL performance is on par, or slightly better than the DX performance on Windows, developers will start seeing Linux as an actual target instead of just the latest Valve fad.

    If (when) we get full DX support in Linux, I'd love to see us blowing the Windows drivers out of the water with MS's own API

    Leave a comment:


  • eydee
    replied
    The problem is that OpenGL under windows is just as unoptimized in Catalyst as under linux. If you run Heaven in OpenGL vs D3D mode, the latter one gets much better scores.

    Some tests I ran yesterday:

    Heaven, OpenGL, High quality, No tessellation, AA off, 1080p: 249 points
    Heaven, DX11, High quality, No tessellation, AA off, 1080p: 829 points

    This is using a 6850, Catalyst Omega, Win8.1 x64

    The funniest thing is that the OpenGL driver is messed up so much that Ultra settings with Extreme tessellation actually yield a better score (265). AMD only "optimizes" for Doom 3 and Rage, and everything else is left in the dust.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X