AMDGPU-PRO vs. Open-Source Gallium3D OpenGL Performance On Polaris Is A Very Tight Race

[haagch]

I wouldn't worry about that since it's haagch i don't think there's many users (if any) that tests everything and files more bug reports the he does.

That's a depressing thought, because I really don't file that many. I just hope there are more dedicated people out there...

[Michael]

Something else I noticed in the previous test results; the old Mesa graph shows the min / max to the left of each bar and the number to the right of each bar is clearly an average, whereas the New Mesa results only showed min. Is it possible the New Mesa results were displaying the maximum fps rather than the average fps? This would make the previous results more consistent with this article; however, it would also mean the New Mesa results from the previous article were only a small improvement, rather than the 40% performance improvement reported.

No, it's all fully-automated from result collection to graphing... No manual intervention. (Nor any code changes in that area lately, so no regression possible either.)

[Tomin]

But why?

Because no one should use compatibility profile with recent versions of OpenGL. It causes incompatibilities with drivers and there is no good reason to use it. It is not needed to play games either.
Some extra information: https://www.opengl.org/wiki/Core_And...ty_in_Contexts

I want edit to come back.

Phoronix Premium users can edit their messages.

[Nille_kungen]

I want edit to come back.
I think that the transition from catalyst to amdgpu is more then a new blob driver since i think it shows a new path for AMD with amdgpu for users and -pro for pro-consumers (not enthusiasts).

[Nille_kungen]

that day will never come because mesa is not going to get compat profile support

It's a matter of interpretation.
Catalyst is more or less dead but i can see that amdgpu-pro can still be called catalyst since it's less confusing.
AMD is already letting mesa do there bidding and is the driver for most users the pro driver is for pro consumers the ones that needs compat profile support.
A few can argue that there's no OpenCL2 or fully functional vulkan support with the mesa driver yet but the ones that needs it should be rather few and more of an special case until there's support for it with the non-pro driver.
I still think that what i said is true.

[Nille_kungen]

You should post a bug on this issue, with all the relevant information you've gathered. I think there are quite a few performance issues that never get reported.

I wouldn't worry about that since it's haagch i don't think there's many users (if any) that tests everything and files more bug reports the he does.
What he does is great and now he seems to have an RX480 as well which is great but i still hope he will try things out on the old hardware as well since i liked to see how playable thing where on that hardware.

[faph]

that day will never come because mesa is not going to get compat profile support

But why?

[dungeon]

Well previous test was on 16.10 and this one on 16.04... OS differences let say, alot improved and regressed in the meantime.

[Herem]

Michael the Bioshock results look like they may have an issue. Looking at the AMDGPU-PRO results the average frame rate of each card is almost exactly the same as the maximum, despite the minimum being in single digits in most cases. For instance the R9 Fury has a maximum frame rate of 82.38 which is only 0.27 fps higher than the average fps of 82.11, this is even though there is a minimum listed of 3.72 fps. The only card which does not have this behaviour is the RX460, which appears to me roughly half way between the min and max.

Xonotics is the only other benchmark which lists ave / min / max and in this test all cards have an average fps at roughly the mid point between the min and max fps. Obviously these are two different games, but it seems strange that the RX460 behaves in a similar manner in both games whereas all the other cards appear to have a fair degree of frame rate variance in Xonotics and almost 0 variance in Bioshock.

The Bioshock Mesa results are also inconsistent with the last set of results published in the BioShock Infinite Runs Much Faster For RadeonSI On Mesa Git: ~40% article. Both sets of results are listed as being run on 4.3 Mesa 12.1.0-devel- padoka PPA Gallium 0.4, however the New Mesa results appear to be approximately 20fps higher in the previous article.

Something else I noticed in the previous test results; the old Mesa graph shows the min / max to the left of each bar and the number to the right of each bar is clearly an average, whereas the New Mesa results only showed min. Is it possible the New Mesa results were displaying the maximum fps rather than the average fps? This would make the previous results more consistent with this article; however, it would also mean the New Mesa results from the previous article were only a small improvement, rather than the 40% performance improvement reported.

[Adarion]

Looks nice, really nice. Though the factory OC'ed 470 comes often out on par with the 480. Also I guess the 460 occasionally suffers from being a 2 GB variant, at least it might on higher resolutions. But at all this is a very good progress, and one of the reasons why I support Team Red.