Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenGL vs. Vulkan With AMDGPU-PRO 16.40, Compared To NVIDIA On Linux

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

  • OpenGL vs. Vulkan With AMDGPU-PRO 16.40, Compared To NVIDIA On Linux

    Phoronix: OpenGL vs. Vulkan With AMDGPU-PRO 16.40, Compared To NVIDIA On Linux

    At the end of October AMD released the long-awaited AMDGPU-PRO 16.40 update. For some birthday benchmarking fun today, I finished up a comparison of the AMDGPU-PRO 16.40 stack with its proprietary OpenGL and Vulkan components on various AMD GPUs compared to NVIDIA results using the 375.10 binary driver...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...O-16.40-VLK-NV

  • #2
    TYVM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Could you please make the bars thinner in future articles? I have a reasonably-sized laptop display (1600x900), but each graph is 2.5x the height of the screen!

      That means a lot of scrolling, and makes at-a-glance comparison impossible. The bars could be a third of the height without affecting the labels, and each graph would fit on a screen.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by FLHerne View Post
        Could you please make the bars thinner in future articles? I have a reasonably-sized laptop display (1600x900), but each graph is 2.5x the height of the screen!

        That means a lot of scrolling, and makes at-a-glance comparison impossible. There's no need for them to be so thick.
        Patches welcome. The bar height is based upon estimate for vertical text to side.
        Michael Larabel
        http://www.michaellarabel.com/

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by FLHerne View Post
          Could you please make the bars thinner in future articles? I have a reasonably-sized laptop display (1600x900), but each graph is 2.5x the height of the screen!

          That means a lot of scrolling, and makes at-a-glance comparison impossible. The bars could be a third of the height without affecting the labels, and each graph would fit on a screen.
          1600x900 is not "reasonably sized". Not in 2016. This time I don't think it's PTS's fault.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by bug77 View Post

            1600x900 is not "reasonably sized". Not in 2016. This time I don't think it's PTS's fault.
            Wasn't a pleasure to read on my 1080x1920 (rotated) screen either ...

            Comment


            • #7
              Ah, non consistent shitty drivers strikes again, stay tuned to january 26 for the next crap

              They can't even do it on stock Ubuntu LTS (let alone all other linux distros), really what a shame AMD what a shame

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by bug77 View Post

                1600x900 is not "reasonably sized". Not in 2016. This time I don't think it's PTS's fault.
                1366x768 is still the most common screen resolution.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Apparently people aren't aware you can zoom out...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It probably should be set relative to font size. Don't know if it uses css, but it could just be as simple as setting it to be 1.5 em high or something. Then if the user has big or small fonts it would be adjusted accordingly.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X