Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel's Gallium3D Driver Is Running Much Faster Than Their Current OpenGL Linux Driver With Mesa 19.3

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

  • Intel's Gallium3D Driver Is Running Much Faster Than Their Current OpenGL Linux Driver With Mesa 19.3

    Phoronix: Intel's Gallium3D Driver Is Running Much Faster Than Their Current OpenGL Linux Driver With Mesa 19.3

    Last month I did some fresh benchmarks of Intel's new open-source OpenGL Linux driver with Mesa 19.2 and those results were looking good as tested with a Core i9 9900K. Since then, more Intel Gallium3D driver improvements have landed for what will become Mesa 19.3 next quarter. In taking another look at their former/current and new OpenGL drivers, here are fresh benchmarks of the latest code using a Core i7 8700K desktop as well as a Core i7 8550U Dell XPS laptop.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=28246

  • #2
    Congrats to the Iris team, and all the devs at Intel on this.

    While my work laptop is still running a haswell quad, I'll probably be upgrading to something Iris capable in the next 6 months. And I've already got a few coworkers running Ubuntu on newer generation thinkpads.

    While I'm generally an AMD guy at home, I can recognize that getting to the performance and feature level shown today took a lot of work and dedication.

    Well done.

    Comment


    • #3
      Can modesetting+glamorgl make use of iris driver now for a better X11 experience?

      Comment


      • #4
        I was wondering if someone here in the know could help me understand something better. Given the graphics coverage and understanding on this site, I am sure someone has this dialed in.

        I recently did a clean Arch install, very minimal. The idea was to keep things as simple as possible to learn from, etc. After my basic base install, I installed sway, the Sway window manager. It pulled in Mesa, and at that point I could launch Sway direct from the command line. Where there were issues were with any programs that needed an X server. So keeping with my learning here, I installed just "xorg-server-xwayland" to get the XWayland X server. Things still didn't work, so I then installed "xf86-video-intel", then bam was good to go.

        I guess my question is, when running just Wayland stuff, is Mesa all that is needed for GPU specific drivers (meaning for open source drivers for Intel, AMD, etc.)? Are the GPU vendor-specific drivers (i.e. "xf86-video-xyz") only needed for an X server? Just curious how this all worked. Thanks to anyone who can help me better understand this.

        Comment


        • #5
          I get a sense, these links may given me some clarity on the matter:

          https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...s#Installation

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.Org_Server#DDX

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct...Infrastructure

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ehansin View Post
            I was wondering if someone here in the know could help me understand something better. Given the graphics coverage and understanding on this site, I am sure someone has this dialed in.

            I recently did a clean Arch install, very minimal. The idea was to keep things as simple as possible to learn from, etc. After my basic base install, I installed sway, the Sway window manager. It pulled in Mesa, and at that point I could launch Sway direct from the command line. Where there were issues were with any programs that needed an X server. So keeping with my learning here, I installed just "xorg-server-xwayland" to get the XWayland X server. Things still didn't work, so I then installed "xf86-video-intel", then bam was good to go.

            I guess my question is, when running just Wayland stuff, is Mesa all that is needed for GPU specific drivers (meaning for open source drivers for Intel, AMD, etc.)? Are the GPU vendor-specific drivers (i.e. "xf86-video-xyz") only needed for an X server? Just curious how this all worked. Thanks to anyone who can help me better understand this.
            Wayland uses almost the entirety of the Xorg stack except for the X server, extensions to that. That means you need the Kernel DRM drivers, + mesa dri drivers + wayland + x server for running xwayland.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waylan...r_protocol.svg

            I think the reason your specific setup didn't work is Arch still has some things depending on xorg... so it isn't a pure wayland desktop but is running somethings via xwayland.

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks for response cb88 !

              Originally posted by cb88 View Post
              I think the reason your specific setup didn't work is Arch still has some things depending on xorg... so it isn't a pure wayland desktop but is running somethings via xwayland.
              Two things, Sway + Alacritty terminal worked fine before installing "xorg-server-xwayland" (I assume a more streamlined install than full "xorg-server" since I will only be using X in Wayland at this point) and "xf86-video-intel" (according to the Arch wiki link above, 'the DDX driver (which provides 2D acceleration in Xorg)'.)

              Because I just wanted to get running, I used the default menu as per the Sway config file of "dmenu" which requires X, and my Firefox if launched without setting the correct env variable, requires X as well by default. These two things, for example, would not launch until I installed XWayland and the XF86 DDX drivers. So it got me thinking. I'm kinda seeing that pure Wayland can run off of whatever drivers Mesa provides, that the XF86 drivers are not needed in a pure Wayland situation. That is what I am trying to clarify if that is always the case. I don't mind pulling in XWayland and XF86 drivers, just a curiosity how things would work in pure Wayland.

              Comment


              • #8
                We should get this in Ubuntu 20.04 then.

                Comment


                • #9
                  That's some good progress. It's been a while since we've seen Windows tests but Intel's drivers have traditionally always been slightly behind in just about everything. With Gallium3D, it might just outperform Windows. Since Michael tends to be limited on how often he can do Windows tests, I'd suggest the Windows comparison should be held off until after the memory situation is cleared up.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ehansin View Post
                    Thanks for response cb88 !



                    Two things, Sway + Alacritty terminal worked fine before installing "xorg-server-xwayland" (I assume a more streamlined install than full "xorg-server" since I will only be using X in Wayland at this point) and "xf86-video-intel" (according to the Arch wiki link above, 'the DDX driver (which provides 2D acceleration in Xorg)'.)

                    Because I just wanted to get running, I used the default menu as per the Sway config file of "dmenu" which requires X, and my Firefox if launched without setting the correct env variable, requires X as well by default. These two things, for example, would not launch until I installed XWayland and the XF86 DDX drivers. So it got me thinking. I'm kinda seeing that pure Wayland can run off of whatever drivers Mesa provides, that the XF86 drivers are not needed in a pure Wayland situation. That is what I am trying to clarify if that is always the case. I don't mind pulling in XWayland and XF86 drivers, just a curiosity how things would work in pure Wayland.
                    I'm using Gnome on Wayland on Arch without any Xorg DDX driver -- I don't even have one installed (I thought there was an xf86-video-modesetting, but can't find it). Both Gnome on Wayland and Gnome on Xorg work for me, but I never tried Sway. In which way did Xwayland fail for you without xf86-video-intel?

                    I think there's a difference between Xwayland and the DDX drivers. You shouldn't try to avoid the first one. There are plenty of apps that can't (GTK 2, Qt 4) or won't use Wayland (Qt5 IIRC). For Firefox I'm using the environment variable and it's fine. Gnome also used to require Xwayland. Supposedly 3.34 requires Xwayland "less", but it still seems to get started, so whatever.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X