Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mesa Git Now Allows Building The Open-Source AMD RADV Vulkan Driver On Windows

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

  • #31
    I wish AMD's drivers under Windows were open-source, that be pretty neat and kinda of make things a little easier development wise for them. MESA drivers under Linux have been quite beneficial for AMD hardware!

    Comment


    • #32
      smitty3268 From those links, it's hard to conclude anything really, as far as I can see, the difference between Vulkan and OpenGL is about the same for both AMD and nvidia, with few exceptions due to the resolution (that might be related to something else, not drivers specifically). Also note that there is about 2 years difference between nvidia and AMD GPUs (favoring nvidia, Fury vs 1080) in those benchmarks, so the results are not directly comparable.

      I'm mainly basing it on fglrx vs mesa experience in Gnome Shell back when fglrx was the thing, even today, mesa fails (or DRM) to diliver as smooth experience as fglrx did. In games, I didn't really test that much, it's a non-issue, since mesa works well enough (and have other advantages, aside from fglrx being obsoleted long time ago, there are advantages such as nine and convinience etc.).

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by leipero View Post
        I'm mainly basing it on fglrx vs mesa experience in Gnome Shell back when fglrx was the thing, even today, mesa fails (or DRM) to diliver as smooth experience as fglrx did. In games, I didn't really test that much, it's a non-issue, since mesa works well enough (and have other advantages, aside from fglrx being obsoleted long time ago, there are advantages such as nine and convinience etc.).
        Fglrx one was kind double edged sword. Fglrx was a single threaded core. Improper graphics scheduler in Gnome Shell that is still a thing was covered by single threading.

        It was one of those horrible ones where particular games would be nice and smooth with mesa while performing well and fglrx was performing badly.

        fglrx vs mesa was always a mixed bag with mesa winning more often than not.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

          Fglrx one was kind double edged sword. Fglrx was a single threaded core. Improper graphics scheduler in Gnome Shell that is still a thing was covered by single threading.

          It was one of those horrible ones where particular games would be nice and smooth with mesa while performing well and fglrx was performing badly.

          fglrx vs mesa was always a mixed bag with mesa winning more often than not.
          Maybe, I know that fglrx did work well in GS, while mesa didn't and still doesn't to this day. If what you are saying about GS threading is true, it makes perfect sense actually and does conform to my experience to this day.

          Generally, fglrx did work well, for WINE it was actually better than mesa, in most cases I've tested at least, excluding nine ofc.. Even for some native games I've tested fglrx was better in general at that time (to be fair, mesa was in much worse state say 4-5 years ago, lot's of bugs as well).

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by leipero View Post

            Maybe, I know that fglrx did work well in GS, while mesa didn't and still doesn't to this day. If what you are saying about GS threading is true, it makes perfect sense actually and does conform to my experience to this day.
            Nothing about a desktop compositor like GS (or Kwin) should be stressing a 3d graphics driver, at all. Not even a tiny amount.

            I assume what you are talking about is relating to the 2D X acceleration drivers. There's no real equivalent to that on the windows side.

            (to be fair, mesa was in much worse state say 4-5 years ago, lot's of bugs as well)
            Yeah, no question about that.
            Last edited by smitty3268; 24 April 2021, 06:51 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              smitty3268 Could be, I'm not so sure tho., DRM via DRI does use mesa, so my assumption is that mesa is used for desktop rendering (since it is rendered via OpenGL). Never really tested it, but I'm quite positive that you won't be able to use GNOME 3 without OpenGL driver (you would, in software mode, not accelerated).

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                Nothing about a desktop compositor like GS (or Kwin) should be stressing a 3d graphics driver, at all. Not even a tiny amount.

                I assume what you are talking about is relating to the 2D X acceleration drivers. There's no real equivalent to that on the windows side.
                The reality here is both gnome and kde in their compositor by pass the 2D X acceleration drivers and go straight to opengl. So yes 2d done with the 3d part of the graphics driver.
                https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/Glamor/
                When using open source drivers with X11 you don't have really 2D X acceleration drivers either instead you use Glamor to redirect what was 2d acceleration drivers under X11 historic into the 3d graphics driver instructions. There is a 2D acceleration under windows that in GDI and under windows it does the same thing of redirecting to 3d direct x functionality these days. The last 2D acceleration driver on windows proper was in NT 3.5. Nvidia still keeps on doing a 2d acceleration driver in their closed source but everyone else with X11 has not done one now for over a 15 years.

                Yes windows API like X11 still has the old interfaces for the 2d accelerator stuff even that they now are wrapped to 3d stuff.

                Its not stressing the GPU is how well do you schedule things with 3d driver so things work right. You can make a GPU stutter badly with bad intentionally scheduling of events.even at 0.01% load

                Comment


                • #38
                  oiaohm That's useful information to know.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Given DXVK actually offers significant performance advantages over AMD's Direct3D 11 drivers, it's worth a shot to try RADV as well.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X