Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Radeon Gallium3D Still Long Shot From Catalyst

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

  • curaga
    replied
    Bridgman, given than GCN moved to hardware scheduling, I assume lacking an advanced compiler in Mesa becomes less of a bottleneck. How would you estimate the effect of that move?

    E.g. do you see GCN cards getting to 80% of catalyst, where earlier can get 70% etc?

    Leave a comment:


  • hal2k1
    replied
    Originally posted by drag View Post
    I think it's very promising. The Xonontic benchmarks are very pleasing.

    I am guessing from the benchmarks is that there is still some stuff falling back to software that is killing performance for certain things. With some optimization to applications and filling in some missing pieces in the drivers and we are golden. Once open source gets within about 70-80% of proprietary then I'd call it success.
    Indeed. The thing about open source drivers is that they can be debugged. It is possible to find out where they are slow, and then further optimise those parts of the code.

    After adding HiZ and doing some further chasing down of performance bottlenecks in the open source code, performance can be expected to reach perhaps 80% of the closed binary drivers. Since almost no-one needs 200 fps performance, and the difference between 160 fps and 200 fps is all but imperceptible anyway, the perfromance issue with open source drivers will essentially be solved.

    Leave a comment:


  • allquixotic
    replied
    Buy lots of RAM and store the apitrace in a Snappy or LZ4-compressed ramdisk That should provide for a faster load time for the apitrace...

    Leave a comment:


  • log0
    replied
    Originally posted by mattst88 View Post
    Regrettably, this doesn't work. When you profile an apitrace replay, you find that a huge portion of the profile is simply apitrace parsing the multigigabyte trace file.
    Hmm, I've got a couple traces from games and my own stuff(20-70fps, 100-400MB). And they take about the same time.

    Just did a quick run with vdrift about 2min, 130MB trace. Frame rate without tracing is about 22fps, with tracing 17fps, retracing 15fps(68% of original fps). Are my results atypical?

    As I see it, the slowdown would be the same for all benchmarked cards and we are interested in the relative performance only.

    Leave a comment:


  • drag
    replied
    I think it's very promising. The Xonontic benchmarks are very pleasing.

    I am guessing from the benchmarks is that there is still some stuff falling back to software that is killing performance for certain things. With some optimization to applications and filling in some missing pieces in the drivers and we are golden. Once open source gets within about 70-80% of proprietary then I'd call it success.

    Leave a comment:


  • droidhacker
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
    LOL you always can buy a faster card but you can't buy a open catalyst
    Sure you can, it just costs about $10 bazallion.

    Leave a comment:


  • mattst88
    replied
    Originally posted by log0 View Post
    Btw I think one could actually use api traces of games as benchmarks. This would additionally ensure that the same call paths are executed, no fall-backs or workarounds for specific hardware taken.
    Regrettably, this doesn't work. When you profile an apitrace replay, you find that a huge portion of the profile is simply apitrace parsing the multigigabyte trace file.

    Leave a comment:


  • darkbasic
    replied
    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    With a more complex game at high resolution (Xonotic @1080p), the OSS drivers are at 60-65% of performance. This is a really good number. With HiZ and some shader compiler optimisation, it should reach 75%, which is really close to the best that can be reasonably expected from the open stack. At 75% performance, the OSS drivers becomes a real option for everyone
    I would have agreed if we were nearing 75% of catalyst in Unigine Heaven.

    Leave a comment:


  • darkbasic
    replied
    I really don't understand why there are no doom3 benchmarks: xonotic and doom3 were the only two benchmarks I was interested to see.

    Leave a comment:


  • pingufunkybeat
    replied
    I don't see it so doomy and gloomy.

    In trivial pixel-pushing benchmarks like OpenArena, Warsow and Padman, the OSS drivers are slower, but well within playable range. 500+ FPS is really not anything anyone cares about. 120Hz should be enough for anyone :P

    With a more complex game at high resolution (Xonotic @1080p), the OSS drivers are at 60-65% of performance. This is a really good number. With HiZ and some shader compiler optimisation, it should reach 75%, which is really close to the best that can be reasonably expected from the open stack. At 75% performance, the OSS drivers becomes a real option for everyone other than people who need the absolute ultimate performance (scientific computing and elite gamerz). It's fast enough for the desktop and casual gaming, and the missing performance costs 20 bucks if you really need it. That would be wonderful! And don't forget that future generations (HD 7000) should be easier to optimise due to the switch away from VLIW.

    It's interesting to see that Nexuiz is so much slower than Xonotic, as they are basically the same game... No idea what happened there. Also, more challenging benchmarks like doom3 would be nice.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X