Originally posted by devius
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Intel SNA Performance Continues To Be Compelling
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by tenzero View Post
I would however like to see some kind of baseline against the usual suspects in discrete gpus. Nothing fancy, just the bottom of the range from AMD and Nvidia to give it all some kind of perspective.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ickle View PostHere you go, IvyBridge (i7-3720qm) in comparison with an Nvidia GTX-550: http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...SU-1207273SU39
Comment
-
Originally posted by devius View PostVery nice. Basically SNA = Good, UXA = Bad. When SNA has regressions they are negligible, but when it performs better, it really performs a lot better.
But what I find truly fascinating is how competitive we actually are with a discrete GPU that has a good driver, over 4x the fill rate of the igfx and several times the shader flops. With regards to 2D performance the limitation tends not to be SNA (unlike UXA and glamor where they are the bottleneck), but the application - which is as it should be. :-)
Comment
-
Originally posted by entropy View PostIs this statement related to intel hardware only or do you think there are general (significant) bottlenecks connected to Glamor?
With regards to performance, the current bottlenecks I see in glamor are due to the CPU overhead of the Intel mesa stack, and the many assumptions that interact extremely poorly with the 2D workload of glamor. Where you do find yourself mostly GPU bound (such as the fish-demo), glamor still falls short by 10-30% due to inefficiences in the GPU programming (too many state changes and poor optimisation of shaders) and the multiple abstraction layers. However, being GPU bound is the exception and typically you end up being ratelimited by one of the paths that are orders of magnitude slower. And then there is the issue that glamor is an absolute resource hog, as the intel mesa driver's buffer management has never been used like that before...
In a perfect world, glamor would equal the performance of a highly specialised driver like SNA; much of the routines used in SNA can be mapped directly onto the OpenGL API - and most have been copied over to glamor. Lots of work needs to be done to tune the entire mesa stack, a lot of which I suspect will only benefit glamor.
And remember, RENDER acceleration is just one small part of the driver.
Comment
Comment