Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Current Intel "Iris" Gallium3D OpenGL Performance Against i965 Mesa, Windows 10 OpenGL

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

  • The Current Intel "Iris" Gallium3D OpenGL Performance Against i965 Mesa, Windows 10 OpenGL

    Phoronix: The Current Intel "Iris" Gallium3D OpenGL Performance Against i965 Mesa, Windows 10 OpenGL

    It's been quite fascinating to watch the development of the Intel Iris Gallium3D driver that has now been in development by their open-source team for more than one year while back in February is where this currently experimental driver was merged into Mesa. It's been over one month since last looking at the Intel Iris Gallium3D performance relative to Intel's default "i965" Mesa OpenGL driver. Here are fresh benchmarks looking not only at their current and next-gen OpenGL Linux driver options but also how that performance compares to their current Windows 10 OpenGL driver.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=27756

  • #2
    Typo:

    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    though the Iris vs. i965 performance was simnlar.
    Windows for light/single workloads and Linux for heavy/many workloads...
    Last edited by tildearrow; 04-15-2019, 09:26 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      This is somewhat surprising. On my igp 620UHD based notebook, Talos principle ran soooo much better on Linux than on windows. And The Witcher 3 failed to run, whereas I can play it through Proton.
      Seems that the Intel Windows drivers are not quite as bad as I thought…

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by grigi View Post
        Intel Windows drivers are not quite as bad
        On windows, for some games to work you need to spoof gpu name as geforce/radeon instead of intel. Chances are, dxvk does that.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by grigi View Post
          This is somewhat surprising. On my igp 620UHD based notebook, Talos principle ran soooo much better on Linux than on windows. And The Witcher 3 failed to run, whereas I can play it through Proton.
          Seems that the Intel Windows drivers are not quite as bad as I thought…
          "as bad" or 'as good' as you thought? 😕

          Comment


          • #6
            Is there any reason you didn't use the 25.20.100.6618 windows driver?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by FireBurn View Post
              Is there any reason you didn't use the 25.20.100.6618 windows driver?
              The one from Intel.com? It said not compatible with this laptop or whatever the precise error message was along those lines.
              Michael Larabel
              http://www.michaellarabel.com/

              Comment


              • #8
                Intel's open source drivers as always worked well for me. The hardware does not have much throughput, but I have the enjoyed low latency in low-demanding space like 2D graphics.

                I don't understand the announces of new generation hardware if it doesn't really perform much better than previous generations. Iris Pro Graphics 5200 was the last Intel GPU that greatly improved compared to it's previous generation IMO. It was released more than 5 years ago. June 2018 Intel confirmed discrete GPUs for 2020 (just after hiring Raja). Years from 2020 are starting to turn into months and no promotions going on AFAIK.

                I would really like to see something from Intel that is able to compete with the rest of the gaming (not-A.I.) market on a software and hardware level.

                Michael, I appreciate the tests. Thanks.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by cybertraveler View Post
                  "as bad" or 'as good' as you thought? 😕
                  Literally as bad. As in my experience on Windows was abysmal ito performance and stability. Whereas Linux is surprisingly performant on the Intel igp.

                  Since Broadwell (gen8) , the intel gpus was about on par feature wise. Older iGPs were even worse for their spec level. The last one that had comparable specs was the original 740/815 integrated but that is over two decades ago.
                  Then the releases later on was mostly incremental fixes, would have loved more than 24SU for a mobile variant, they kinda got stuck at 48 for a long while (after being at 72 during broadwell). (ramble, ramble, ramble…)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thanks for running these, Michael! It's always really nice to have an extra set of data about how we're doing.

                    I fixed Portal, it's now 3.86% faster than i965 on my laptop. Hadn't looked at that one until I saw this.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X