Originally posted by mathcore
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Linux 3.13 Kernel Is A Must-Have For AMD RadeonSI Users
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Veerappan View PostThanks for the updated RadeonSI benches, Michael. You've got paypal.
Between previously running 3.12 with radeon.dpm=1 with mesa from git to now running 3.13rc7 and mesa-git with the performance patch to go with it, my mining performance has gone from 70-150 Mh/s to currently hovering around 490Mh/s using a single 7850 and bfgminer's OpenCL backend.
I haven't recently benched any games, but the OpenCL performance is much improved (at least for this one use case).
I guess it would be nice to see some early comparisons on OpenCL on Clover, Catalyst and any other available implementations.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herem View PostClearly irony is not a word you are familiar with! If you're really that interested in a certain game's performance you could always test it yourself.
Sounds like an excellent plan...
Comment
-
Originally posted by tom.higgy View PostThat's interesting. The bitcoin mining hardware comparison lists 7850 at 280-360 MH/s, presumably with Catalyst. A waste of power but still interesting.
I guess it would be nice to see some early comparisons on OpenCL on Clover, Catalyst and any other available implementations.
I re-installed my OS, did some software/kernel upgrades recently, and now I've got bfgminer currently reporting 492.2Mh/s with the 7850 running at 65C.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ericg View PostFactoid: Radeon in general has fairly poor memory allocation in comparison to Catalyst, and the better your card is the more obvious this becomes because then Memory becomes the bottleneck. By poor memory allocation I mean the driver is kind of 'dumb' about where things should be in memory, whats safe to move out of GPU memory / just drop completely, and the likes. Its on the 'volunteer todo list' last I heard, because optimized memory algorithms were never on the original AMD roadmap and plans.
One additional note... In most cases, especially high end cards, Catalyst will ALWAYS BE FASTER. Kernel and Mesa would never accept code that said
If (CardID == 7970)
{
Codepath 1
}
else If (CardId == 7770)
{
Codepath 2
}
else // See: Low and medium cards
{
CodePath 3
}
Meanwhile Catalyst just might, and probably does, because they have a financial incentive to make sure that every single card gets the most performance that it can get, even if it means micro-managing code paths. The Kernel and Mesa devs will accept the code that works the best on the most cards as possible, and is the most maintainable, even if that means maybe only hitting 90% performance of the possible because you've got a high end card
Remember, AMD and Nvidia's business is to get you to buy new hardware as often as possible. Optimizing older and cheaper hardware would be against their interests. While the open source drivers are optimizing the code for one path, it might be better in the long run for everyone then to have separate optimized code paths.
Just look at AMD's patch notes. They generally favor newer and expensive graphic cards over cheaper and older.
Comment
-
I'm running three monitors off a 7790 2 1920 x 1200 + 1 1920 x 1080. Up until now I haven't been able to get my screens configured properly with radeon. Most distros it doesn't even see them as separate monitors, so its update and then install catalyst, but maybe I'll give a radeon arch install a try with 3.13.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zanny View PostEven if it runs acceptably with GLAMOR, the current state of it means you are wasting a lot of power and generating a lot of heat to do what an Intel APU could do without breaking a sweat.
That can show up in certain apps, but not usually the desktop shell itself anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by smitty3268 View PostModern desktops running in OpenGL mode don't really even touch GLAMOR anyway. Glamor accelerates XRender, 2d acceleration code.
That can show up in certain apps, but not usually the desktop shell itself anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tomtomme View PostIm on HD7950 and mesa/oss driver since some months. 2D performance was all the time fluently enough for me. I did not recognize stutters or lags but sometimes some visual glitches on overlays - but those stay only for seconds
The raw performance of the HD7950 is so big, it is no wonder that even if it is so unoptimized that it runs 2D fluently. My guess is that goes also for any HD 78xx or 77xx. 2D is just not a real problem today. Or is it for anyone reading this? Contrary experiences despite low benchmark numbers compared to catalyst?
I didn't pay for some glued, genereic 2d driver BS. Definitely no more AMD graphics for me.
Comment
Comment