Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RADV vs. AMDGPU-PRO Vulkan Performance vs. OpenGL In May 2017

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

  • RADV vs. AMDGPU-PRO Vulkan Performance vs. OpenGL In May 2017

    Phoronix: RADV vs. AMDGPU-PRO Vulkan Performance vs. OpenGL In May 2017

    With the open-source RADV Radeon Vulkan driver recently hitting the milestone of effectively being Vulkan 1.0 compliant, I figured this warranted a good time for running a fresh open-source Vulkan vs. AMDGPU-PRO Vulkan performance comparison on various graphics cards. For additional context, the RadeonSI and AMDGPU-PRO OpenGL numbers are also present to provide additional value.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=24629

  • #2
    Looks like propriety Vulkan on linux needs some serious attention going on the fact that the oss GL is quicker in some cases. I don't expect radv to be performant just yet.

    Wonder why there is such a difference between the windows and linux vulkan implementations.

    Comment


    • #3
      From those test we can be certain 580 support is suspicious.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks Michael. Looks like the regression for 580 is common for both radv and radeonsi. And since it s the same chip as 480... maybe firmware issues?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by przemoli View Post
          From those test we can be certain 580 support is suspicious.
          You mean opensource driver support is suspicious, as PRO driver for RX 580 scale fine above RX 480.

          The Radeon RX 550 was to be tested as RADV last week landed Polaris 12 GPU support, but during my tests the RX 550 on RADV was very unstable and thus was dropped from the testing process.
          RX 5xx seems young and problematic on opensource driver, why don't you include RX 460 that is older and somewhat mixed - as somewhere perform fine and somewhere not where expected.
          Last edited by dungeon; 05-12-2017, 01:53 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            That mad max test is strange...

            i get about 15-30fps on OpenGL, but Vulkan i get about 40-80fps, using an A10 7980k with a RX480, using mesa 17.1.0
            how can that test show OpenGL be faster than Vulkan for you?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by higuita View Post
              That mad max test is strange...

              i get about 15-30fps on OpenGL, but Vulkan i get about 40-80fps, using an A10 7980k with a RX480, using mesa 17.1.0
              how can that test show OpenGL be faster than Vulkan for you?
              4K maybe, or if you don't get numbers via pts, ggame settings difference, not exact same build of the driver, kernels diff, distro difference, hardware difference... luck maybe, anything could explain difference to mention also freq scaling, composite and why not systemd

              In Michael case that is also obsolote DE, while new G choosen one might be even weirder
              Last edited by dungeon; 05-12-2017, 03:06 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                The Vulkan performance is somewhat disappointing. For all the hype it's gotten, I would've hoped it'd be doing better compared to the open source OpenGL driver.

                Comment


                • #9
                  And the i7 7700 that minimizes the impact of Vulkan (less CPU overhead)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by higuita View Post
                    how can that test show OpenGL be faster than Vulkan for you?
                    Vulkan only has lower CPU overhead, but GPU performance is unaffected if both GL and Vulkan program the GPU in the same way. If GL uses different/better GPU programming, it can be faster.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X