Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Radeon RADV "ACO" Performance On Mesa 19.3 Looking Good

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

  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by castlefox View Post
    I probably missed it but why is there a lack of Navi support with this??
    What this project does is highly hardware specific. They haven't added Navi support yet because they need to make changes to target the new architecture, and that will be true for all future hardware generations as well.

    It sounds like Navi support is coming along fairly well, though. They still need to support geometry and tessellation shaders across all hardware as well. I'd say that's the more important task IMHO, because then they could actually fully replace LLVM and all the dependencies it brings into radv.
    Last edited by smitty3268; 10-12-2019, 08:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by agd5f View Post

    I wonder how much improved LLVM would be if the same effort that was expended to write a new compiler from scratch had been put into LLVM instead.
    Well, I guess we'll never know for sure, but the ACO devs seem to think not much. They're arguing that doing a whole new compiler was easier than getting changes into LLVM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    Originally posted by geearf View Post
    GFX8 also includes Tonga, Carrizo, Stony Ridge and Iceland/Topaz (small laptop only part)

    Leave a comment:


  • LeJimster
    replied
    Originally posted by agd5f View Post

    I wonder how much improved LLVM would be if the same effort that was expended to write a new compiler from scratch had been put into LLVM instead.
    I'm certainly no expert, but wasn't the reasoning that LLVM is such a large project, that to optimize it for one thing without breaking it for other use cases would have required much more time and resources. In the end they decided (rightly or wrongly) to create something new with one focus.

    ​​​​I sometimes wonder what could have been if AMDVLK had been open sourced a year or so earlier. Seems we have a lot of projects doing the same thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • castlefox
    replied
    I probably missed it but why is there a lack of Navi support with this??

    Leave a comment:


  • tuxayo
    replied
    Thanks for these benchmarks. If I understand correctly, the NIR patches aren't used here right?

    Should we also expect more performance from them?

    Leave a comment:


  • tildearrow
    replied
    Originally posted by geearf View Post
    Therefore it is a typo.

    Leave a comment:


  • agd5f
    replied
    Originally posted by mphuZ View Post
    AMD should accept this compiler in their AMDVLK and radeonsi.
    I wonder how much improved LLVM would be if the same effort that was expended to write a new compiler from scratch had been put into LLVM instead.

    Leave a comment:


  • nuetzel
    replied
    Originally posted by xxmitsu View Post
    And mesa master branch is not even containing all the available improvements. As it was mentioned in the merge forum thread:


    Anyway, great to see that even that, it managed to obtain better performance.
    Thank you for the testing, Michael!
    And thank you Valve & Co. for your efforts, much appreciated!
    Thank you Daniel (Bas and Rhys)!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • shmerl
    replied
    Originally posted by mphuZ View Post
    AMD should accept this compiler in their AMDVLK and radeonsi.
    Otherwise ACO will be useless.
    radv / aco focus on gaming use case most. amdvlk might have more compute requirements not covered by aco. Just a guess.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X