Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GLAMOR Radeon Shows 2D Acceleration Promise

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    I guess I don't understand the pushback -- people are effectively saying "if you need something like a full 3D driver in the ddx to get decent performance then we expect you to do it" and "OMG why are they looking at Glamour (a ddx built over a full 3D driver) ??"
    I guess it's that glamor both tears and is slower in every benchmark published, on every hardware measured

    Plus there's a belief in the air that "normal" 2d would already be running on hd7k.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by curaga View Post
      I guess it's that glamor both tears and is slower in every benchmark published, on every hardware measured
      Slower than what? For "2D", software rendering is almost always faster than hw acceleration (EXA, UXA, and even SNA in a lot of cases). RENDER semantics map poorly to hw. Glamor is roughly on par with EXA today and makes it a lot easier to improve support in the future.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by agd5f View Post
        Slower than what? For "2D", software rendering is almost always faster than hw acceleration (EXA, UXA, and even SNA in a lot of cases). RENDER semantics map poorly to hw. Glamor is roughly on par with EXA today and makes it a lot easier to improve support in the future.
        Slower than either of UXA or SNA in this article for example: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...y_glamor&num=4

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by curaga View Post
          Slower than either of UXA or SNA in this article for example: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...y_glamor&num=4
          You guys are talking about totally different things. agd5f is talking about software rendering (eg shadowfb) on SI which is what you get by default today, you're talking about Glamor on Intel hardware.

          Going forward, remember Chris W's comment that (paraphrasing a bit) Glamor is a good fit for big-ass GPU hardware (eg SI). Also note that some people are looking at initial patches for Glamor vs years of work on other architectures and extrapolating that "it's gonna be that way forever".
          Last edited by bridgman; 07-30-2012, 02:58 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by bridgman View Post
            Going forward, remember Chris W's comment that (paraphrasing a bit) Glamor is a good fit for big-ass GPU hardware (eg SI).
            These:
            http://ickle.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/glamorous-radeon/ ?

            I count two wins for glamor and the rest are losses (vs Radeon EXA).

            Also note that some people are looking at initial patches for Glamor vs years of work on other architectures and extrapolating that "it's gonna be that way forever".
            I'm aware, and you should be too, but yet you said above "I guess I don't understand the pushback".

            It's entirely because of that. Users live in the now, saying that "in the future it will be bliss" is just talk, the "results now" show that glamor is worse in performance, and that it tears.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by curaga View Post
              These:
              http://ickle.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/glamorous-radeon/ ?

              I count two wins for glamor and the rest are losses (vs Radeon EXA).



              I'm aware, and you should be too, but yet you said above "I guess I don't understand the pushback".

              It's entirely because of that. Users live in the now, saying that "in the future it will be bliss" is just talk, the "results now" show that glamor is worse in performance, and that it tears.
              Software rendering is on par with or faster in more cases then any of the acceleration architectures. By that logic we should all be using shadowfb.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by curaga View Post
                It's entirely because of that. Users live in the now, saying that "in the future it will be bliss" is just talk, the "results now" show that glamor is worse in performance, and that it tears.
                Sure, but every architectural improvement sucked if you ran the early code, including SNA and EXA.

                I'm just seeing a lot more "extrapolating the future based on the initial code" and "proclaiming that extrapolation to be fact" than I ever saw in the past.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by agd5f View Post
                  Software rendering is on par with or faster in more cases then any of the acceleration architectures. By that logic we should all be using shadowfb.
                  There are some use cases where software rendering is currently slower (primarily the fancy html5 browser demos). But it would be really nice if radeon DDX allowed to use non-crippled software rendering for 2D graphics (so that it is at least as fast as fbdev) as an option, while still providing the rest of the features expected from a modern graphics card (hardware accelerated OpenGL for 3D games, Xv extension for tear-free video, rotation, multi-monitor support, ...). Right now Option "RenderAccel" has some performance issues.

                  But it's not just performance. Reliability is also important. Do you remember a recent fallout of bugs in hardware accelerated RENDER implementations, which was just triggered by upgrading to recent cairo-1.12? Do you know that many linux distros are still patching cairo to disable the use of server side hardware accelerated gradients because the gradients are screwed up in the drivers even now? Software rendering is not totally bug free, but it is doing a lot better on the reliability front.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by ssvb View Post
                    There are some use cases where software rendering is currently slower (primarily the fancy html5 browser demos). But it would be really nice if radeon DDX allowed to use non-crippled software rendering for 2D graphics (so that it is at least as fast as fbdev) as an option, while still providing the rest of the features expected from a modern graphics card (hardware accelerated OpenGL for 3D games, Xv extension for tear-free video, rotation, multi-monitor support, ...). Right now Option "RenderAccel" has some performance issues.

                    But it's not just performance. Reliability is also important. Do you remember a recent fallout of bugs in hardware accelerated RENDER implementations, which was just triggered by upgrading to recent cairo-1.12? Do you know that many linux distros are still patching cairo to disable the use of server side hardware accelerated gradients because the gradients are screwed up in the drivers even now? Software rendering is not totally bug free, but it is doing a lot better on the reliability front.
                    As I've mentioned several times on all of these threads, for good performance you really need to be all software or all hardware rendering. Any time you mix the two, performance suffers. That's why disabling RENDER accel is slower than plain shadowfb; you can use the GPU for copies and fills, but for everything else, the buffer must be migrated between CPU and GPU domains when you want to switch who renders. The same is true of trying to mix shadowfb and hw 3D rendering or Xv. If you have a shadowfb in system memory and the CPU is doing the rendering and then the GPU renders to an OpenGL or Xv buffer, you then have to deal with updating your shadowfb in system memory with the results of the 3D rendering in GPU memory. you still end up ping-ponging.

                    EXA does not even provide the infrastructure to accelerate gradients or trapezoids at the moment. They weren't used much previously because very few drivers (if any) implemented acceleration for them; hence they weren't tested much outside of sw rendering. Software rendering works because it's the reference implementation; that's how the features like gradients were added in the first place. Glamor has the infrastructure to support gradients and trapezoids already which is another reason it is attractive.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by agd5f View Post
                      If you have a shadowfb in system memory and the CPU is doing the rendering and then the GPU renders to an OpenGL or Xv buffer, you then have to deal with updating your shadowfb in system memory with the results of the 3D rendering in GPU memory. you still end up ping-ponging.
                      Hmm, seems like this is really difficult for me to understand. Why would we even need to "update shadowfb in system memory with the results of the 3D rendering in GPU memory"? Doesn't it make a lot more sense to just set up something like periodic DMA transfers from shadowfb system memory to GPU memory (synchronized with screen refresh) and composite it with 3D or Xv buffers together on the GPU side before sending the combined pixel data to HDMI? Or is there some kind of hardware limitation here? Maybe I just need to check the hardware manuals first and not waste your time with silly questions.

                      Glamor has the infrastructure to support gradients and trapezoids already which is another reason it is attractive.
                      OK, in any case it's nice to have multiple alternatives. So you are of course free to try your luck with Glamor. With only one important condition: we need much better tools for automated correctness validation of RENDER implementations. Otherwise it is a real recipe for disaster

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X