No announcement yet.

Radeon RX 550: AMDGPU-PRO vs. DRM-Next + Mesa 17.2-dev

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Radeon RX 550: AMDGPU-PRO vs. DRM-Next + Mesa 17.2-dev

    Phoronix: Radeon RX 550: AMDGPU-PRO vs. DRM-Next + Mesa 17.2-dev

    Earlier this week I posted a number of Radeon RX 550 Linux benchmarks making use of AMD's popular open-source driver stack. For those wondering how the open-source driver compares to the AMDGPU-PRO hybrid proprietary driver for this sub-$100 Polaris GPU, these benchmarks will interest you.

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    The time has come: Mesa driver better in any benchmark


    • #3
      Cool. Last time when I trying mesa 17.0.4 on my radeon hd5850 it gives me worse performance than old fglrx :/ for e.g in Dota 2. In dota2 on fglrx (catalyst 15.9) I have about 50-60 FPS on almost max settings but on the same gpu with mesa 17.0.4 I have 10-25 FPS and horrible lags... Is any cause of this? Or maybe this is because open source not care too much about r600?


      • #4
        Originally posted by MVinhas View Post
        The time has come: Mesa driver better in any benchmark
        Only in openGL.
        Not in vulkan.
        Not in openCL.

        AMD GCN users right now are in this very awkward transition phase where we have to pick and choose which userspace and sometimes even which kernel driver to use depending on the application.
        Last edited by humbug; 07 May 2017, 09:22 AM.


        • #5
          Originally posted by Qaridarium

          you just talk bullshit because: the OpenSource OpenGL implementation is faster than the closed source Vulkan implementation. so there is ZERO benefit in using Vulkan Closed Source right now for the end-user.

          after that AMD should stop the development of the Closed-Source driver on linux.
          we do not need it and we do not want it on our platform.
          Comparing GL to Vulkan performance is irrelevant when discussing Vulkan performance between drivers.

          Mesa doesn't support compatibility contexts in OpenGL, so hopefully AMD will continue providing closed-source drivers for Linux which do support compat contexts. Some games rely on them.

          I agree that Mesa is the best choice out there. But to say there's no need for the closed-source drivers is pretty absurd.


          • #6
            I have a question. What stops Nvidia and other companies from using open source code in their closed drivers? That is if the code if better then their own.


            • #7
              Originally posted by valici View Post
              What stops Nvidia and other companies from using open source code in their closed drivers?
              Apart from ethics, either nothing or the open-source license used. If it's GPL then it's not legal to take the code, modify it and redistribute it with less rights than the original license provided.


              • #8
                A bit off topic but wasn't this generation of hardware supposed to give us HW accelerated VP9 ??


                • #9
                  Originally posted by atomsymbol
                  In my opinion, a better solution would be a single amdgpu.ko kernel module and multiple competing OpenGL/Vulkan/OpenCL implementations on top of the single kernel module. Currently, amdgpu-pro has its own kernel module incompatible with amdgpu.ko. airlied bridgman
                  The problem in the short term is that kernel code used only by closed-source userspace can not go upstream, so the only "common" kernel driver is the out-of-tree amdgpu-pro code (which we do test at least lighly against open source userspace).

                  As we open up the remaining closed-source userspace drivers this situation should improve.
                  Test signature


                  • #10
                    This would be great if the open source drivers supported OpenGL 4.5, but since they don't, and the developers have promised they never will, the point is rather moot. If you want to run Steam under Wine or play many games that require it you have to use AMDGPU-PRO. And yes, I've tried the various environment variables that are supposed to "fool" software into believing the open source drivers support OpenGL 4.5 compatibility mode, but they didn't fool anything I've tried. And for those who say the multitudes of software that use compatibility mode are "crap" or "buggy", that's ridiculous. Steam itself uses compatibility mode, and if people want to claim it's buggy or crap, well, I don't believe any amount of reality will change their minds. And for a driver producer to believe that all the games and software in the world that use compatibility mode should be rewritten, instead of them supporting this common feature, well, again, no amount of reality will change their minds.