Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RadeonSI/RADV Mesa 17.3 + AMDGPU DC vs. NVIDIA 387.12 Linux Gaming Performance

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

  • RadeonSI/RADV Mesa 17.3 + AMDGPU DC vs. NVIDIA 387.12 Linux Gaming Performance

    Phoronix: RadeonSI/RADV Mesa 17.3 + AMDGPU DC vs. NVIDIA 387.12 Linux Gaming Performance

    With Mesa 17.3 now having been branched for its stable release next month and that bringing much improved RADV Radeon Vulkan performance and more mature RX Vega support along with a ton of other improvements, here is a fresh comparison of the newest open-source Radeon Linux graphics driver code compared to the latest NVIDIA Linux driver on a range of graphics cards.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=25398

  • #2
    All the vulkan tests were run at 4K, which somewhat hides the performance gap between RadV and the Nvidia vulkan driver...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by tildearrow
      What about ParaView on NVIDIA without CUDA to make the comparison fair?
      Paraview doesn't use CUDA. Just clarified the text to make it clearer.
      Michael Larabel
      http://www.michaellarabel.com/

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by humbug View Post
        All the vulkan tests were run at 4K, which somewhat hides the performance gap between RadV and the Nvidia vulkan driver...
        Because if running most of the tests at 1080p, there is no scaling with the higher-end parts.
        Michael Larabel
        http://www.michaellarabel.com/

        Comment


        • #5
          Really impressed the driver improvements that has happened and keeps happening
          Desktop Environment poll:
          https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...de-do-you-like

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by humbug View Post
            All the vulkan tests were run at 4K, which somewhat hides the performance gap between RadV and the Nvidia vulkan driver...
            Originally posted by Michael View Post
            Because if running most of the tests at 1080p, there is no scaling with the higher-end parts.
            And to be frank, it is a benchmark so Michael is trying to push the cards to it's maximum potential too, same if 8K/16K is the norm (and implemented) and then that will be used etc. Not saying 4K is the norm because it's still a niche, my friend has a 4K screen not thinking he was sitting too close would screw up his eyes/neck/body in any way he reduced the resolution (the application not the desktop so he still utilizes the 4K resolution). Makes me think if a lot of gamers that has 4K screens thinks of the distance from your screen to your seat is good too.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Sethox View Post
              And to be frank, it is a benchmark so Michael is trying to push the cards to it's maximum potential too, same if 8K/16K is the norm (and implemented) and then that will be used etc. Not saying 4K is the norm because it's still a niche, my friend has a 4K screen not thinking he was sitting too close would screw up his eyes/neck/body in any way he reduced the resolution (the application not the desktop so he still utilizes the 4K resolution). Makes me think if a lot of gamers that has 4K screens thinks of the distance from your screen to your seat is good too.
              4k makes sense on 43'' screens, as there it has a similar PPI (pixel per square inch) of a normal fullhd PC monitor, so you actually have more space.

              If you buy smaller screens then you need to upscale your applications or it's too small to be read, and this defies the point of a 4k screen.

              Comment


              • #8
                This is really amazing. Looking aside from RADV and Vega, which both needs some further maturation, radeonsi is now highly competitive with the closed source nvidia driver in opengl gaming. This is a fantastic achievement, congratulations to all developers who made it happen!

                Comment


                • #9
                  not bad, they only need more optimizations and have the best driver in 12 years for amd/ati cards

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                    4k makes sense on 43'' screens, as there it has a similar PPI (pixel per square inch) of a normal fullhd PC monitor, so you actually have more space.

                    If you buy smaller screens then you need to upscale your applications or it's too small to be read, and this defies the point of a 4k screen.
                    Spoken like someone who has no 4k screen. Bravo.
                    If you had you would know that you only need to scale up a bit because of the higher dpi. Everything is so much sharper, so it can bei smaller. You may Not double your space but you get like 1.5 Times the space.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X