Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How Ubuntu 16.04 Is Performing With AMDGPU/Radeon Graphics Compared To Ubuntu 14.04 With FGLRX

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post

    Yep... the 70% estimate (originally 60-70% IIRC) was based on a shader translator or very simple compiler; once Vadim started working on SB and Tom started working on LLVM that estimate was at least potentially left behind. On the other hand writing complex shader compilers is hard and the learning curve is steep so the estimate held up pretty well for a while. We made the estimate in 2007 and it held up until... what, 2013/2014 ?
    Well it turned out great.
    For the 60-70% you need to scroll down to #36 in the linked thread.
    https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...460#post132460
    Back then i didn't expect more but you did also mention that the documents to gain 100% where released.
    It took some time but now i think most users prefer the open source driver, at least i do.

    Comment


    • #22
      The benchmarks (with the expection of the R9 285) didn't look that bad for AMDGPU+mesa, but you would need some Nvidia benchmarks in the same table. It would be nice if there would be an exchange policy from AMD, like give 2 legacy cards and get a new one. Right now i don't have got any card to test AMDGPU.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
        another favor for us AMD users is please don't bring back FGLRX OpenCL code, delay it if you have to because the current code is horrible to work with..
        I look forward to it since it will be opened up. (OpenCL 2)
        Last edited by Nille_kungen; 03-15-2016, 03:41 PM.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by duby229 View Post
          There still is the problem of OpenGL level of support, but with Catalyst being so broken it won't play most games anyway (and so buggy you can't stand using a desktop on it), it's only a matter of time before the OSS stack is able to play more games than Catalyst can.
          You probably are not using latest catalysts for linux, because I'm using them (carrizo laptop on ubuntu 14.04) and are not "so buggy you can't stand using a desktop on it". Just to make things clear.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Pontostroy View Post
            hd 7790 amdgpu performance compare to windows catalyst (opengl and dx9 games and benchmarks ~ 85%)
            http://www.gearsongallium.com/?p=2889
            Thanks, looks a bit better than I expected, want to see some more though.

            Originally posted by bridgman View Post

            Just curious, what "AMDGPU fiasco" are you talking about ?
            Wrong word, I meant well, something else entirely, don't know a good word to put here, but lets say whole "amdgpu deal" (which works) instead, sorry.
            Last edited by rabcor; 03-15-2016, 03:52 PM.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by rabcor View Post
              Wrong word, I meant well, something else entirely, don't know a good word to put here, but lets say whole "amdgpu deal" (which works) instead, sorry.
              Ah yes, I have done that too... thanks !

              Comment


              • #27
                So can we expect the hybrid AMDGPU to at least perform at performance parity with Fglrx?

                There really is no reason why Catalyst couldn't work on 16.04. All that's needed it a community supported downgrade port of Xserver 1.17 to 16.04.

                Here on Archlinux, it's possible to have Catalyst with bleeding-edge components and a 4.4 kernel but with the 1.17 Xserver and a patched COGL for Gnome. There is a repo that lets you downgrade your Xorg stack.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by Xaero_Vincent View Post
                  So can we expect the hybrid AMDGPU to at least perform at performance parity with Fglrx?
                  Yes, although if we put out an early preview (eg to get Vulkan out the door) I don't know how much of that performance you will see in that first release. By the time we get to 1.0 I would expect comparable performance.
                  Last edited by bridgman; 03-15-2016, 04:33 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Wonder why they don't just ditch fglrx and put all the fglrx folks on RadeonSI+AMDGPU. Seems like it's prettymuch there. They could quite possibly release their Mesa as a drop-in for fglrx with some effort.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by microcode View Post
                      Wonder why they don't just ditch fglrx and put all the fglrx folks on RadeonSI+AMDGPU. Seems like it's prettymuch there. They could quite possibly release their Mesa as a drop-in for fglrx with some effort.
                      Well fglrx is most likely to be dropped soon if GCN 1.0 gets supported by amdgpu.
                      With amdgpu i don't see any need to drop the blob since it will be better for users then fglrx (i mean sync with xorg and kernel releases) and i guess it will be better for AMD developers as well.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X