Open-Source Radeon HD 6000 Series Still Borked

[crazycheese]

Ok. 100 fps.
- Consider the rendering is better than OpenGL 2.1.
- Consider it is 1280x1024 instead of 1024x768
- Consider it has 16x Anisotropic filtering while mesa doesn't support it
- Consider it has 4xAA while mesa doesn't support anti aliasing.
- Consider the final FPS score is lower than a screenshot because sometimes there are big fps drop.

I was wrong, mesa is 30 times slower at least.

Hey, mesa is opensource! All the drawbacks you listed require huge crew of driver developers with access to hardware. Damn, 1 year ago I had to disable noveau, to use nvidia driver, because noveau and its kms simply caused kernel panic on my gf parents machine with 8300 igp.
What AMD could do, is put many many more people behind opensource driver - and associate them the way they associate their closed source development with card sells. They refuse so far.

By the way, that phenom II of yours is big bottleneck.

[crazycheese]

Do you have a link to show that? In http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...e_heaven&num=2 even the best card, 4890 with the blob, did not break 80fps at 1024x768.

Would the 3.x vs 2.1 codepath really have that much impact?

4890 is garbage heatgun. It was an attempt to fight against gtx280/285 until evergreen showed up and it was partially successful - 5870, given optimized driver and application (the way that vliw5 engine is eff?ciently utilized) should outperform 4890 at least by factor 2.5

But of course, opensource driver lacks features and there is no optimization, hence this results. Still, you have a card from manufacturer that pays opensource development, which is very good.

[darkbasic]

Ok. 100 fps.
- Consider the rendering is better than OpenGL 2.1.
- Consider it is 1280x1024 instead of 1024x768
- Consider it has 16x Anisotropic filtering while mesa doesn't support it
- Consider it has 4xAA while mesa doesn't support anti aliasing.
- Consider the final FPS score is lower than a screenshot because sometimes there are big fps drop.

I was wrong, mesa is 30 times slower at least.

[curaga]

Do you have a link to show that? In http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...e_heaven&num=2 even the best card, 4890 with the blob, did not break 80fps at 1024x768.

Would the 3.x vs 2.1 codepath really have that much impact?

[darkbasic]

Anyway even 13 fps is nothing! With an OpenGL 2.1 rendering and a 1024*768 resolution it should be able to do more than 100 fps with proprietary drivers, so it's ten times slower, probably even more.
Fortunately mesa does not still support OpenGL 4.1, otherwise it will be a slideshow

[curaga]

PM'd. Ten characters is a lot.

[darkbasic]

Uhm... where do you live? Maybe it's a problem with my load balancing implementation, can you try with http://diego.linuxsystems.it/ which doesn't have any kind of load bal? It's htpassword protected, so you should just see the login.
Also, can you resolve the name? 'host linuxsystems.it' or 'dig +short linuxsystems.it'
Thank you for reporting.

Edit:
My entire network has an interconnected and centralized banning system, if your ip does something wrong in a server you will be banned from my entire network. I have disabled it now, but it may have been the problem...

[curaga]

@darkbasic

I'm having trouble accessing your site for some days now. Works via a proxy though.

[smitty3268]

r600g is in solid enough shape now that the lack of an optimizing shader compiler is beginning to hurt.

[darkbasic]

Here is Unigine Heaven, it's somehow faster there...