Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD R600/700 2D Performance: Open vs. Closed Drivers

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

  • phoronix
    started a topic AMD R600/700 2D Performance: Open vs. Closed Drivers

    AMD R600/700 2D Performance: Open vs. Closed Drivers

    Phoronix: AMD R600/700 2D Performance: Open vs. Closed Drivers

    While the ATI Radeon HD 5800 graphics cards were introduced last week, the open-source support for the Radeon HD 2000/3000/4000 series is finally maturing. The Linux 2.6.32 kernel will feature kernel mode-setting support for these ATI R600/700 graphics processors as well as the DRM support for allowing 3D acceleration. The classic Mesa support for the Radeon HD 2000 through Radeon HD 4000 series is maturing and is now able to run basic OpenGL games and applications, while the Gallium3D support is still a ways out. However, now that there is finally the Catalyst 9.10 driver within Ubuntu Karmic Koala that supports the latest kernel, we are finally able to directly compare the performance of AMD's Catalyst driver and that of the latest open-source code. In this article we have benchmarks showing the 2D performance between these two driver options with both an R600 and R700 graphics card.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14223

  • Linuxhippy
    replied
    Originally posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
    so please explain what the setting:
    Option "Textured2D" "on"
    means for fglrx
    Well, even without "Textured2D" fglrx does a bit of hw acceleration, Texture2D adds another few operarations and is known to often cause troubles.
    So if a driver accelerates 10% of operations stable, and 25% if I turn on experimental switches, I don't call it capable
    Last edited by Linuxhippy; 10-03-2009, 02:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • kernelOfTruth
    replied
    Originally posted by Linuxhippy View Post
    2D is accelerated by the GPU if the driver is capable (currently all major dirvers except fglrx). period.

    - Clemens
    so please explain what the setting:

    Option "Textured2D" "on"

    means for fglrx

    Leave a comment:


  • Linuxhippy
    replied
    Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
    2D on Windows Vista and 7 is just as much accelerated by the GPU as CPU Ray tracing is.
    GDI is software-only. However WPF as well as GDI+ now sit on top of D3D. Even Java does its 2D drawing using D3D. So basically you say that a legacy API is software-only, not 2D in general.
    The same goes for Xorg. Yes X11 core drawing is mostly fallback, but XRender is usually accelerated quite well, despite the fact that its 2D.

    3D in NT6.0 is in some cases faster because it actually mostly runs inside the GPU. Catch my drift?
    I don't see how "3D" differs between XP and Vista, when talking about D3D or OpenGL.

    This performance gain is mostly held back by compositing which puts extra burden on the GPU. It is also why games like Crysis runs slower in Vista than it does on XP, while it's designed for Vista and even then it is not crippled (on XP you miss some graphical features and Crysis only runs on one core).
    As far as I know, compositing is disabled for fullscreen games (would be really stupid anyway).

    - Clemens
    Last edited by Linuxhippy; 10-03-2009, 09:33 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • V!NCENT
    replied
    Originally posted by Linuxhippy View Post
    I wonder why so many semi-professionals have the idea that 2D=CPU and 3D=GPU, and therefor "3D is faster".

    I don't recall who often I have heard people stating that 2D rendering will be accelerated by your 3D engine because of compiz or similar bullshit.

    2D is accelerated by the GPU if the driver is capable (currently all major dirvers except fglrx). period.
    2D on Windows Vista and 7 is just as much accelerated by the GPU as CPU Ray tracing is. 2D in NT6.0 is pure fallback. So like: hey let's render this in software and then send the entire desktop to the framebuffer. 3D in NT6.0 is in some cases faster because it actually mostly runs inside the GPU. Catch my drift? This performance gain is mostly held back by compositing which puts extra burden on the GPU. It is also why games like Crysis runs slower in Vista than it does on XP, while it's designed for Vista and even then it is not crippled (on XP you miss some graphical features and Crysis only runs on one core).

    Leave a comment:


  • Linuxhippy
    replied
    Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
    So now you have shitty performance with the 2D desktop (burden on the CPU) and the only way to activate GPU accelerated desktop was by enabling compositing which was also putting more burden on system performance.
    I wonder why so many semi-professionals have the idea that 2D=CPU and 3D=GPU, and therefor "3D is faster".

    I don't recall who often I have heard people stating that 2D rendering will be accelerated by your 3D engine because of compiz or similar bullshit.

    2D is accelerated by the GPU if the driver is capable (currently all major dirvers except fglrx). period.

    - Clemens

    Leave a comment:


  • nanonyme
    replied
    Originally posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
    which "Windows" ?
    But Windows 7 RC, naturally. You don't honestly think I'd pay for any of their earlier productions? (actually might for Windows 7) Anyway, getting offtopic here.

    Leave a comment:


  • kernelOfTruth
    replied
    Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
    That's not really relevant in this... Windows with or Without seems more responsive than Linux with or without compositing.
    which "Windows" ?

    you already tried a kernel with BFS and/or 2.6.32-rc1 ?

    those have the latest changes in cpu scheduling which should make desktop interactivity significantly better

    Leave a comment:


  • nanonyme
    replied
    Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
    The workaround? Demand more CPU and GPU time. So on computers that run terribly slow with Vista you still get an insanely respnsive GUI with terrible compute performance.

    So there is no way to compare Windows performance with Linux but to test it on Windows XP...
    Eh, isn't that mostly optimizing for desktop performance at the cost of other stuff?

    Leave a comment:


  • V!NCENT
    replied
    Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
    That's not really relevant in this... Windows with or Without seems more responsive than Linux with or without compositing.
    Compositing on Windows was since Vista. Back when it was still called Longhorn, and when GPGPU computing was non-existant, the idea was that if the UI was to run on the GPU then Windows would become faster (Vista was to be the Mac OS X experience on future Windows PC's). Then there came 3D desktops and Vista needed to have that feature too.

    So now you have shitty performance with the 2D desktop (burden on the CPU) and the only way to activate GPU accelerated desktop was by enabling compositing which was also putting more burden on system performance.

    The workaround? Demand more CPU and GPU time. So on computers that run terribly slow with Vista you still get an insanely respnsive GUI with terrible compute performance.

    So there is no way to compare Windows performance with Linux but to test it on Windows XP...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X