Originally posted by sykobee
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
18-Way GPU Linux Benchmarks, Including The Radeon RX 460 & RX 470 On Open-Source
Collapse
X
-
Michael Larabel
https://www.michaellarabel.com/
-
Originally posted by bridgman View PostMaybe I have that backwards then... I thought Heaven was newer. Hold on, will check...
Nope, looks like you are right and Heaven did come out first. I guess I just thought Heaven was newer because it seems to use more advanced graphics tech, but maybe it's just tesselation in Heaven vs. more detailed textures in Valley.
So yeah, I guess running both would be best and we'll try to figure out why Heaven runs faster than Valley. Thanks !Michael Larabel
https://www.michaellarabel.com/
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by stqn View Post4K results are only interesting for the GTX 1080 and maybe 1070, it makes no sense to test everything in 4K. At most 2% Steam users have 4K monitors according to the Steam hardware survey.
Comment
-
Originally posted by stqn View Post4K results are only interesting for the GTX 1080 and maybe 1070, it makes no sense to test everything in 4K. At most 2% Steam users have 4K monitors according to the Steam hardware survey.
Clearly all linux gamers have a 4k monitor, and also dualboot into windows, there is no other rational explanation.
- Likes 4
Comment
-
-
Hey Michael, a couple suggestions. (not criticism)
1. I realize people will probably ask you to compare every card you have, but i actually think this would have been cleaner to show fewer. You could limit it to the other cards in it's class, for example, along with a few others like the 1060 to compare to nvidia's current architecture and maybe some higher-end last gen AMD gpus. But including outliers like the 1080 and 980ti isn't useful.
2. Reduce the tests to run at 1080p for this hardware. It's slow enough that it makes sense to do so, or at least 1440p. 4K just isn't going to run well on this hardware, and it doesn't make sense to do the comparisons there. Taking out the 1080 results per suggestion 1 might have made this more obvious to you, since it's the high-end nvidia cards that are capable of running 4k. Sub-30 fps tends to indicate the resolution is too high.
- Likes 6
Comment
-
I opened a bug report for the regression performance of the R9 290 in kernel 4.7:
If you have been hit by a performance regression in kernel 4.7, please make a comment on the link above and if you weren't (IF you are running kernel 4.7), comment too, so we can understand if it is a kernel ou packaging problem.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by smitty3268 View PostHey Michael, a couple suggestions. (not criticism)
1. I realize people will probably ask you to compare every card you have, but i actually think this would have been cleaner to show fewer. You could limit it to the other cards in it's class, for example, along with a few others like the 1060 to compare to nvidia's current architecture and maybe some higher-end last gen AMD gpus. But including outliers like the 1080 and 980ti isn't useful.
2. Reduce the tests to run at 1080p for this hardware. It's slow enough that it makes sense to do so, or at least 1440p. 4K just isn't going to run well on this hardware, and it doesn't make sense to do the comparisons there. Taking out the 1080 results per suggestion 1 might have made this more obvious to you, since it's the high-end nvidia cards that are capable of running 4k. Sub-30 fps tends to indicate the resolution is too high.
- Likes 3
Comment
Comment