He mentions in the article that RadeonSI is not quite there yet. What more do you want? Or is this another blind allegation of favouritism on Larabel's part?
I am already quite happy with my 4670's performance. It will be interesting to see how things look when I can update.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
AMD Radeon Gallium3D More Competitive With Catalyst On Linux
Collapse
X
-
and as usual, Michael conveniently leaves out any 7XXX series card from the tests because he knows (and I'm very sure he does) that including it will make the open drivers look downright loserrific.
Leave a comment:
-
steam games
i really like a comparation with steam games, one of this days i put my 4850 on use to see the diference =) the worst from radeon fss drivers is the power management at this point
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ua=42 View PostIf the framerate is equal to or greater than your monitor refresh speed, then it is enough (no point of having it higher than your screen's refresh rate, you won't see them). For most monitors that is 60fps.
(The number of frames needed for the human eye to not care varies on whether or not Motion Blur is in effect. If there's motion blur then you can have a number like 24 or 25 without it being 'jarring.' If there isn't then I think its equal to the refresh rate for no jarring-ness. EG: Old Quake games dont have Motion Blur, you need more FPS to avoid a jarring effect)
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by duby229 View PostThe definition of what decent framerates is exactly is another issue entirely.
Leave a comment:
-
You make a good point. I'm sure that in that games heyday it was probably optimized by AMD extensively. As when it was new it was used extensively in mainstream benchmarketing sites. not going to name names here, but....
The chances of the OSS driver ever getting per application performance tuning is slim. Mainly because it is a waste of time. If the game plays at decent framerates then it shouldnt really matter too much. The definition of what decent framerates is exactly is another issue entirely.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by liam View PostWhat games make use of OGL4+? For that matter, what games make use of OGL3.3+?
What's the big bottleneck with Doom 3?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by przemoli View Post3.2 is more important. OSX use 3.2 excessively, and apps on Win are using DX (more likely). So people will tend to have 3.2 code paths for the sake of OSX compa. Games also should pick 3.2 (as this give 95% of Steam market...), while 4.x will still for some time be add-on, as it require up to date drivers on win, mean no osx support, and binarys on Lin.
Yes 3.3 will mark "full" OpenGL support for class-DX11 hw, but otherwise 3.2 support is more important (and we will get them both in same mesa release at least for intel & r600g)
But the reason I wrote 3.3 is that it's mostly done. As soon as the missing parts of GL 3.2 are finished, 3.3 will come automatically.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by phoronix View PostPhoronix: AMD Radeon Gallium3D More Competitive With Catalyst On Linux
With the ever-changing state of Linux graphics drivers -- both for the open and closed-source drivers -- new tests have been conducted to compare the OpenGL graphics performance on Linux with AMD Radeon graphics. In this article are benchmarks of nine different Radeon HD graphics cards when being tested on the very latest AMD Catalyst (13.3 Beta 3) graphics driver as well as the open-source AMD Radeon driver consisting of Mesa 9.2-devel and the yet-to-be-released Linux 3.9 kernel.
http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18654
What's the big bottleneck with Doom 3?
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: