Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DRI2 vs. DRI3 Radeon Linux OpenGL Performance

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

  • DRI2 vs. DRI3 Radeon Linux OpenGL Performance

    Phoronix: DRI2 vs. DRI3 Radeon Linux OpenGL Performance

    Following the recent Phoronix article about the state of DRI3 for X.Org drivers, many in the forums began discussing DRI3. While the Intel and Radeon X.Org drivers don't yet enable Direct Rendering Infrastructure 3 by default, I decided to run some fresh OpenGL benchmarks with a few Radeon graphics cards to compare the performance of DRI2 and DRI3.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=22349

  • #2
    Wish Arch would ignore upstream on this one and just enable the flag in its Mesa builds. You would still need xorg.conf switches to use it, but their Mesa packages are still being built without --enable-dri3. Guess I'm going to go build my own Mesa this evening to try it out.

    Comment


    • #3
      Up to 22% as marketing like to say

      Didn't expected there will be this kind of difference somewhere (that openarena 0.8.5 on R7 370).

      Comment


      • #4
        This is a pretty hefty performance difference for some of these tests. I'd be interested to know how they compare to catalyst, because maybe the tests where DRI3 offered no performance difference may have equal or better performance to catalyst. That being said though, I think only one of these GPUs would need to be tested for that. We got the gist, I don't think all 3 need to be compared.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
          This is a pretty hefty performance difference for some of these tests. I'd be interested to know how they compare to catalyst, because maybe the tests where DRI3 offered no performance difference may have equal or better performance to catalyst.
          Dreamer!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
            This is a pretty hefty performance difference for some of these tests. I'd be interested to know how they compare to catalyst, because maybe the tests where DRI3 offered no performance difference may have equal or better performance to catalyst. That being said though, I think only one of these GPUs would need to be tested for that. We got the gist, I don't think all 3 need to be compared.
            Catalyst has threaded GL enabled for Openarena, so it would be faster then radeosi because that allow additional CPU to be used.

            Well DRI3 radeonsi probably will kill Catalyst in Xonotic in some cases (lower especially) because it does not have that enabled by default

            edit: i mean in openarena 0.8.5 that one is CPU capped, while 0.8.8 is bandwidth so GPU capped (because of r_bloom_reflections enabled)
            Last edited by dungeon; 11-01-2015, 02:04 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              The difference between the two is that when rendering rate is above the screen refresh (60fps), DRI2 does one copy per frame, whereas DRI3/Present limits to one copy per screen refresh (ie max 60 copies per screen refresh).

              Thus the difference will only appear when we render faster than the screen can show, meaning no user side improvement.

              Wayland should show the same perf difference compared to DRI2, and XWayland will as well when it gets proper Present support.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by zanny View Post
                Wish Arch would ignore upstream on this one and just enable the flag in its Mesa builds. You would still need xorg.conf switches to use it, but their Mesa packages are still being built without --enable-dri3. Guess I'm going to go build my own Mesa this evening to try it out.
                This bothers me as well. Maybe some arch dev is around and sees this article,
                Or someone can link this in their forums.

                Anyways, thanks for the article Michael!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Adriannho View Post
                  This bothers me as well. Maybe some arch dev is around and sees this article,
                  Or someone can link this in their forums.

                  Anyways, thanks for the article Michael!
                  DRI3 is already enabled by default in mesa.
                  http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mes...figure.ac#n762

                  Since 2014:
                  http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mes...39ab3db31fffd9
                  Last edited by AnAkIn; 11-01-2015, 06:30 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Great article, I think DRI3 needs publicising more and I think this'll help with that.

                    I noticed a particular forum post that mentioned this in the last Radeon tests (which I think what Michael was referring to) and I actually enabled it on my Arch gaming machine yesterday from that, though I haven't tested it yet. It was surprisingly difficult to find the instructions on how to enable it. It's one of the few times that the Arch wiki has let me down and I had to reference a few different sources to find the correct instructions, but hey, that's Arch for you.

                    I echo the sentiment that I wish Arch would enable it by default, or at the very least add a section to the Xorg wiki page that gives instructions. I'll maybe dip my toe in the water of contributing to the wiki by suggesting it.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X