Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMDGPU-PRO 16.40 vs. Linux 4.8 + Mesa 13.1-dev Driver Comparison

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

  • AMDGPU-PRO 16.40 vs. Linux 4.8 + Mesa 13.1-dev Driver Comparison

    Phoronix: AMDGPU-PRO 16.40 vs. Linux 4.8 + Mesa 13.1-dev Driver Comparison

    Last week marked the release of the AMDGPU-PRO 16.40 driver as AMD's first hybrid driver since the 16.30 driver series over the summer that rolled out Polaris GPU support. With this first AMDGPU-PRO update in a few months, here are some fresh benchmarks comparing the performance to the latest open-source driver code.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=23700

  • #2
    With Tesseract the best performance was on AMDGPU-PRO.
    While charts shows the opposite

    Comment


    • #3
      Unfortunately, I can't reproduce this numbers on my Core i5 and HD7850 on linux 4.8 + mesa 13rc2. The GPU is the same as R7 370 (or very similar) and from performance point of view as RX460. This is also what I see in another tests. For Bioshock I'm getting ~44FPS on 1920x1080@Ultra what is more or less the same as here, however how can RX460 come to over 90FPS in this one? I mean, it's clear, my card is still using radeonSI and RX460 uses AMDGPU and mesa is 13.1-dev, so I'm comparing some very different things, but how can the difference be so high? Even if you take the benchmark under the link and compare the results to this article, the performance difference is more than 100% for RX460.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by scorp View Post
        For Bioshock I'm getting ~44FPS on 1920x1080@Ultra what is more or less the same as here, however how can RX460 come to over 90FPS in this one?
        There RX 460 has 48 fps @ 4K Xonotic, but here it is bumped to 77 fps... so likely get improved generally. But I also think that previous results looks more correct, from scalability with older POV

        Maybe try to upgrade your mesa+llvm and kernel, hopefully might also get something i guess or try amdgpu yourself, should work with 4.9 kernel Otherwise it is quite possible that only Polaris got these real perf improvments

        Comment


        • #5
          I also cannot reproduce the performance demonstrated in the benchmarks. What is really strange is that I get the same performance as scorp, but I have an RX480 not a HD7850. I am unable to determine what is causing the slowdown. I know I should probably create my own thread but if anyone is able to point me in the right direction, it would be much appreciated.

          Kernel: 4.8.4-1-ARCH
          Compositor: KDE Plasma 5.8.2
          Renderer: Gallium 0.4 on AMD POLARIS10(DRM 3.3.0 / 4.8.4-1-ARCH, LLVM 4.0.0)
          OpenGL Version: 3.0 Mesa 13.1.0-devel (git-7a2387c)
          Power: intel_pstate performance

          It's probably not that useful, but here are the packages (that I believe are relevant):
          linux 4.8.4-1
          lib32-mesa-git 86149.7a2387c-1
          lib32-mesa-libgl-git 86149.7a2387c-1
          mesa-git 86149.7a2387c-1
          mesa-libgl-git 86149.7a2387c-1
          lib32-llvm-libs-svn 285564-1
          llvm-libs-svn 285559-1
          llvm-svn 285559-1


          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by brandonp View Post
            I know I should probably create my own thread but if anyone is able to point me in the right direction, it would be much appreciated.
            Some Ubuntu install on spare partition just to try to reproduce this, maybe.

            If even that does not help, than maybe Linux only works fine on Xeons or at the end of the day maybe it just work for Michael this way

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by scorp View Post
              Unfortunately, I can't reproduce this numbers on my Core i5 and HD7850 on linux 4.8 + mesa 13rc2. The GPU is the same as R7 370 (or very similar) and from performance point of view as RX460. This is also what I see in another tests. For Bioshock I'm getting ~44FPS on 1920x1080@Ultra
              bioshock is cpu-bound. you are measuring not your card, but your cpu against mchaels's xeon

              Comment


              • #8
                He uses his Xeon CPU, so he has much better performance because Mesa isn't so limited by the CPU.

                Either that or the Bioshock was running at "High" settings.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Are you sure that is the case? I have an i7-2600k OC to 4.2GHz. It just seems strange to me that the game would perform ~60FPS worse on my CPU. I know that an i7 is nowhere close to a Xeon, but 60FPS seems to be gigantic.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It depends... I've seen Xeons being slower than a fat i7 desktop CPU.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X