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

  • #11
    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.
    For many, myself included, the point of ludicrously high resolutions like 4k is to not be able to see the pixels anymore. The potential for extra screen real-estate is a side effect.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Michael View Post

      Because if running most of the tests at 1080p, there is no scaling with the higher-end parts.
      Hardware fillrate isn't the end all be all of benchmarking. Your intro sells this as "much improved RADV Radeon Vulkan performance" but to see driver performance increases best, you must be CPU limited, not GPU limited. Yet all these 4K tests are GPU limited. These benchmarks are valuable for those looking to buy hardware, not to see how Vulkan drivers are maturing.

      Comment


      • #13
        Sorry but these results shows that AMD is not good as Nvidia even a slight.

        Look at min fps. On Nvidia side , it is more than double of Amd results.

        There are still looongg way to go for Amd. These dips will return you as stuttering which is a bad thing for gaming.

        Comment


        • #14
          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.
          I have a 27" UHD monitor and several 22-24" FHD ones. There is a substantial fidelity improvement in reading text on the 4k panel. There is a subtle fuzziness in text at 95-105 DPI and 2-3' view distances that goes away completely upping it to ~160 DPI.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by slacka View Post
            These benchmarks are valuable for those looking to buy hardware, not to see how Vulkan drivers are maturing.
            Erm... you do know that RADV is still in development? For AMD users, the RADV-benchmarks are indeed an indicator on how it matures. It also allows users to see the impact of a port vs. native performance and how well a certain game is implemented. It is still pretty hard to come to a conclusion of where the bottleneck(s) are, as few games are highly optimized. Even Doom as best example so far has still quite some headroom.

            For now, the most important part is, if AMD on Linux is competitive (which it is) and if studios allocate more manpower for Vulkan implementation (which is also the case). With that in mind and hoping for future games to be a tad bit better optimized, we can "guess" a little, if the raw horsepower of AMD cards will be put on the road. In any case, the results are looking good for the most part.

            Comment


            • #16
              ParaView was recently added to the Phoronix Test Suite as a visualization/workstation-focused test. Sadly here we see RadeonSI performing extremely poorly and see why NVIDIA dominates in the workstation space, besides CUDA and other factors driving its marketshare in that segment.
              I don't understand this comment... wouldn't a comparison of workstation driver to workstation driver for ParaView make more sense ?

              Comment


              • #17
                Fury performance is awesome.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Leopard View Post
                  Sorry but these results shows that AMD is not good as Nvidia even a slight.

                  Look at min fps. On Nvidia side , it is more than double of Amd results.

                  There are still looongg way to go for Amd. These dips will return you as stuttering which is a bad thing for gaming.
                  Like min-fps metric makes any sense. So if one driver makes a single 3fps dip during scene startup then it automatically loses? Thanks, but I will judge smoothness using less retarded means.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Wielkie G View Post

                    Like min-fps metric makes any sense. So if one driver makes a single 3fps dip during scene startup then it automatically loses? Thanks, but I will judge smoothness using less retarded means.
                    Min fps is a major metric.

                    Did you even encountered one of them on CS:GO and Rocket League , Dota 2 like games?

                    It is not so important on single player games that much , but it is critical on multiplayer.

                    Also go do your AMD fanboying somewhere else. I also love AMD but i'm smart enough for not calling bad results as good ones.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by bridgman View Post

                      I don't understand this comment... wouldn't a comparison of workstation driver to workstation driver for ParaView make more sense ?
                      The bad ParaView performance seems to be an inefficiency... well almost a bug in Mesa. I'm working on a fix right now.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X