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

[curaga]

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.

[log0]

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.

[dungeon]

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

[dungeon]

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.

He, he, i don't have 8.1, but i installed it maybe week ago on friend's laptop and run Valley benchmark there on Intel Pentium B950 with Intel HD graphics (which is awfull slow as it is OK), but i was surprised that OpenGL mode can't even start on that while DX9/DX11 mode works .

Together with these your result i somehow think 8.1 is not something reliablile to test OpenGL... i don't use Windows daily only for tests, but is Windows 8.1 realy that broken for OpenGL or am i miss something Or if someone has Window 7 vs Windows 8.1 OpenGL benchark results on same hardware, might be that will approve claim

[dungeon]

And the point about is: it is not that some GPU vendor does not care about OpenGL on Windows, but Microsoft does not care

[AnonymousCoward]

Intel OpenGL windows vs linux is totaly different driver. There are tons of people which gets 2-3x FPS increase in Minecraft after they switch to Linux. Intel OpenGL is one of worst implementation out there.

[eydee]

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.

So are you suggesting D3D is harvesting energy (performance the hardware is incapable of) from out of nothing and beating the law of conservation of energy?

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

Do you believe an article that posts fps values without actually telling anything about the hardware/software environment being used? And, well, Intel has the same performance as AMD and nvidia according to the graphs... It's just an article that "proves" that DX is superior compared to OpenGL, nothing more. (Notice the quotes before you attack me!)

Maybe Michael with his brand new test farm could analyze the situation a bit further.

[Passso]

And the point about is: it is not that some GPU vendor does not care about OpenGL on Windows, but Microsoft does not care

The facts are : on Windows nobody care about OpenGL

[log0]

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

So what exactly is your problem? 6% vs 10% really!?

Yes benchmark results will differ with driver/hardware. They are still usefull to get a general idea about performance.

[log0]

Do you believe an article that posts fps values without actually telling anything about the hardware/software environment being used? And, well, Intel has the same performance as AMD and nvidia according to the graphs... It's just an article that "proves" that DX is superior compared to OpenGL, nothing more. (Notice the quotes before you attack me!)

And what is exactly your problem with me?