Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 3.12 Brings Big AMD Radeon Improvements

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

  • #41
    Please, include E-350 into the testing mix.

    I've seen many testimonials of AMD Radeon 4850 owners who were unhappy with Linux 3.11. Couldn't this be simply a bug fix for Radeon 4850?

    Comment


    • #42
      See Michael's post #37...

      Originally posted by Michael View Post
      I've been able to confirm this so far on a HD 6000 and HD 4000 different GPUs and a completely different PC.
      Test signature

      Comment


      • #43
        The only thing I can think of that may have improved things is changing the default gart size on r7xx+ asics from 512M to 1024M. If anyone want to test different gart sizes, you can change the gart size with the gartsize radeon kernel module parameter. E.g., add radeon.gartsize=1024 to the kernel command line in grub. Default is 512M for r1xx-r6xx and 1024M for r7xx+.

        Comment


        • #44
          my experience

          AMD 6850 / Nexuiz

          Kernel 3.11 old git ( HEAD is now at f7217b9 r600g: enable SB backend by default )

          NORMAL: 98,5 fps
          ULTRA: 56,8fps


          Kernel 3.12 / git commit 453ea2d309c0314bea8a209f536e2b3c2c4d92c6 / Date: Sun Oct 13 19:53:54 2013 +0400

          NORMAL: 206 fps
          ULTRA: 108 fps

          Pretty nice speed up for me.

          Comment


          • #45
            Something strange and potentially wonderful is afoot, methinks.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by ObiWan View Post
              A10-6800 4,1 GHz - Gigabyte AMD Radeon HD 6870 1024MB (915/1050MHz)

              Kernel: 3.12.0-rc4:
              Code:
              Xonotic 0.7:
                  pts/xonotic-1.3.1 [Resolution: 1920 x 1080 - Effects Quality: Ultra]
                  Test 1 of 1
                  Estimated Trial Run Count:    3
                  Estimated Time To Completion: 11 Minutes
                      Started Run 1 @ 21:07:15
                      Started Run 2 @ 21:08:54
                      Started Run 3 @ 21:10:34  [Std. Dev: 1.61%]
              
                  Test Results:
                      119.2862578
                      116.5561488
                      115.6666134
              
                  Average: 117.17 Frames Per Second
                  Minimum: 56
                  Maximum: 264
              Kernel: 3.11.4:
              Code:
              Xonotic 0.7:
                  pts/xonotic-1.3.1 [Resolution: 1920 x 1080 - Effects Quality: Ultra]
                  Test 1 of 1
                  Estimated Trial Run Count:    3
                  Estimated Time To Completion: 11 Minutes
                      Started Run 1 @ 21:15:28
                      Started Run 2 @ 21:17:04
                      Started Run 3 @ 21:18:39  [Std. Dev: 0.11%]
              
                  Test Results:
                      122.3697861
                      122.3688075
                      122.1429572
              
                  Average: 122.29 Frames Per Second
                  Minimum: 59
                  Maximum: 264
              Thanks very much for the info !
              (I also would love to see some results in a E-350 and a A8-3870K...anyone ? I wanted this to have an idea what could be the theoretical performance of underclocked and undervolted A6-5400K and a A6-5200 (Kabini) )

              Edited...

              Wait, your A10-6800K results are with a dGPU, what we need is pure iGPU results ...
              AJSB
              Senior Member
              Last edited by AJSB; 13 October 2013, 01:21 PM.

              Comment


              • #47
                Lovely. But even if performance wise the open driver would be the same as Catalyst I would still use the latter for two reasons:

                1. Power saving
                2. Configuration capabilities.

                While there is some work being done on 1 there is absolutely none on 2...

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by borsook View Post
                  Lovely. But even if performance wise the open driver would be the same as Catalyst I would still use the latter for two reasons:

                  1. Power saving
                  2. Configuration capabilities.

                  While there is some work being done on 1 there is absolutely none on 2...
                  Open drivers should have power saving comparable to Catalyst now.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by borsook View Post
                    Lovely. But even if performance wise the open driver would be the same as Catalyst I would still use the latter for two reasons:

                    1. Power saving
                    2. Configuration capabilities.

                    While there is some work being done on 1 there is absolutely none on 2...
                    What config cap You need?
                    (I guess that its not multimonitor setup nor power saving options as that is either via gui, or via etc files)

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by przemoli View Post
                      What config cap You need?
                      (I guess that its not multimonitor setup nor power saving options as that is either via gui, or via etc files)
                      Antialiansing settings, texture filtering settings, vsync etc etc. Plus using open drivers still is bothersome due to the situation with S3TC...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X