Originally posted by pal666
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
AMDGPU-PRO vs. Open-Source Gallium3D OpenGL Performance On Polaris Is A Very Tight Race
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Azpegath View Post
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.
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.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by pal666 View Postthat day will never come because mesa is not going to get compat profile support
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by faph View PostBut why?
Some extra information: https://www.opengl.org/wiki/Core_And...ty_in_Contexts
Originally posted by Nille_kungen View PostI want edit to come back.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herem View PostSomething 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.Michael Larabel
https://www.michaellarabel.com/
Comment
-
That's a depressing thought, because I really don't file that many. I just hope there are more dedicated people out there...
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Impressive! Makes me wonder whether the investment on the closed-source AMDGPU part wouldn't have been better spent on the open-source Gallium-3D driver instead.
Or considering AMD's proprietary OpenGL driver isn't known for its high implementation quality, replacing it with the Gallium3D version across all supported platforums
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Michael View Post
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.)
Benchmark Average Frame Rate RX460 Old Mesa 62.82 RX460 New Mesa 82.80 RX460 Latest Results 32.47
Would it be possible to observe the AMDGPU-PRO Bioshock benchmarks running on the R9 Fury to determine if the frame rate really is rock solid at close to the maximum value or if there's a problem with the way the results are being collected? A difference of only 0.32% between the maximum (82.38 fps) and the average (82.11 fps) results sounds much to low unless the frame rate has been capped.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herem View Post
If there haven't been any code changes, do the latest set of Mesa results include the recent Bioshock performance patch? The latest results seem to have dropped from the previous article back to around the pre-patch values and in the case of the RX460 the results are significantly worse than either of the previous two sets of results?
Benchmark Average Frame Rate RX460 Old Mesa 62.82 RX460 New Mesa 82.80 RX460 Latest Results 32.47
Would it be possible to observe the AMDGPU-PRO Bioshock benchmarks running on the R9 Fury to determine if the frame rate really is rock solid at close to the maximum value or if there's a problem with the way the results are being collected? A difference of only 0.32% between the maximum (82.38 fps) and the average (82.11 fps) results sounds much to low unless the frame rate has been capped.Michael Larabel
https://www.michaellarabel.com/
- Likes 3
Comment
Comment