Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fresh Haswell & Skylake OpenGL vs. Vulkan Benchmarks On Linux 4.9, Mesa 13.1-dev

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

  • Fresh Haswell & Skylake OpenGL vs. Vulkan Benchmarks On Linux 4.9, Mesa 13.1-dev

    Phoronix: Fresh Haswell & Skylake OpenGL vs. Vulkan Benchmarks On Linux 4.9, Mesa 13.1-dev

    Last week I published some fresh Vulkan vs. OpenGL benchmarks of AMD/NVIDIA GPUs in AMDGPU-PRO vs. NVIDIA On Linux With OpenGL and Vulkan, but for those wanting some fresh Intel OpenGL vs. Vulkan Linux numbers, I have some fresh data to share this evening...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...KL-OGL-VLK-4.9

  • #2
    I'll be honest, that's piss poor performance. After all these years, Haswell Linux performance is still significantly less than Haswell Windows performance. It's like it's purposefully crippled. What the hell is Intel doing?

    AMD who are financially struggling can keep better performance than this. Intel is bigger both financially and workforce wise even if we compared it to a combined Nvidia and AMD. Where's Intel's professionalism here?

    The hardware is there, but the drivers are stagnant. You can play dying light and Star Wars battlefront on that iGPU under the Windows Intel driver for goodness sake.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by sabun View Post
      AMD who are financially struggling can keep better performance than this. Intel is bigger both financially and workforce wise even if we compared it to a combined Nvidia and AMD. Where's Intel's professionalism here?
      I'm pretty sure Intels workforce is geared towards CPU performance, with (i)GPU performance an afterthought.

      BTW, Michael, when you choose to use 'slightly' and 'much' continues to amaze me. Apparantly 11.5% is 'slightly faster' and 18% is 'much better performance'. Surely if 11.5% is still 'slightly faster', 'much better' doesn't start until atleast 25-30%? A more objective way to cover your results would be to just refrain from using such subjective words entirely, leaving the conclusion to the reader.

      Comment


      • #4
        Michael any chance you could do Intel tests in 720p (additionally or instead of 800x600) because I think it would be more interesting for HTPC users (like I am).

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by sabun View Post
          AMD who are financially struggling can keep better performance than this. Intel is bigger both financially and workforce wise even if we compared it to a combined Nvidia and AMD. Where's Intel's professionalism here?
          Well those are iGPUs, that can't do miracles... i guess you comparing that to AMD APUs, because dGPUs are really different beasts

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by baka0815 View Post
            Michael any chance you could do Intel tests in 720p (additionally or instead of 800x600) because I think it would be more interesting for HTPC users (like I am).
            Or even better 960x540 that is 16:9, which is same 4X diff to FullHD as it is FullHD to 4K.

            But those are non standard resolutions, so probably Michael is lazy to make xorg.conf for those But i guess those iGPU gamers already do that, games can look still fine even at FullHD screens if game is at 960x540 of course if you apply at least FXAA

            Comment


            • #7
              Has Michael ever done a "AMD APU's versus Intel GPU's" test?

              Comment


              • #8
                Blah it is possble to do some gaming on any iGPUs, but of course user need to set it up and play with settings... well, PC is not Playstation anyway

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by lvlark View Post
                  I'm pretty sure Intels workforce is geared towards CPU performance, with (i)GPU performance an afterthought.
                  I don't believe that one bit. First of all, Intel hasn't done anything interesting with their CPU architecture since Sandy Bridge (arguably Ivy Bridge if you consider the use of FinFETs). Secondly, it doesn't take much to get a new CPU architecture optimized for a kernel. Little snippets of microcode here and there and that's it. The main difference between Skylake and Haswell are the IGPs.

                  Not only does AMD have overall better drivers than Intel but they have a significantly smaller developer team, and it wouldn't surprise me if they're paid less too. Intel's net income is greater than all of AMD's assets combined. Intel has a very substantial userbase in Linux. They have been funding and working on their open source drivers before any competitors. And yet, it's still not good enough. New Haswell-based computers are still being sold, yet Intel has already put Haswell development on the backburner. There is no excuse for any of this.

                  Intel's GPU hardware isn't anywhere near as bad as people make it out to be but even in Windows, their driver support is lacking. Maybe people wouldn't talk crap about Intel's GPUs so much if they actually gave them attention.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    How much of the performance difference is due to CPU and how much is due to opengl and vulkan extensions and optimizations?
                    at a guess...
                    ​​​​​

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X