Linux Gaming For Older/Lower-End Graphics Cards In 2018

[puleglot]

The Serious Sam 3 BFE Linux port is TERRIBLE, really, really bad. You need a supercomputer to run that at acceptable framerate on Linux.

Are you talking about original BFE linux port or about BFE Fusion? I'm sure Michael have tested Fusion version.

[AnonymousCoward]

Don't forget that AMD silently lowered the published minimum specs for the RX 560

It's like they hate that chip... When the RX 500s were announced, tests for the 550 and 570/580 quickly followed, with lots of sites publishing them around the same time. The 560 was much later and apparently just pushed out without a set date, reviews were rare and came one at a time. Then the silent downspec, so those who did find an early review were duped by the name that didn't mean the same it meant originally anymore. Now 560 cards that have the full GPU and decent clocks are pretty rare (and expensive, though that's probably not AMDs fault, but the miners').

[coder]

It's like they hate that chip... When the RX 500s were announced, tests for the 550 and 570/580 quickly followed, with lots of sites publishing them around the same time.

RX 550 was new - no RX 400 equivalent. RX 570 had the biggest specs jump vs. the RX 400 series, and RX 580 was the top card. So, it makes sense that they would overshadow the RX 560.

Now 560 cards that have the full GPU and decent clocks are pretty rare (and expensive, though that's probably not AMDs fault, but the miners').

Not rare or expensive. They're one of the GPUs least-affected by the mining surge - Newegg has a 1024-shader RX 560 for $120:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814137260

Annoyingly, it'l cost you another $30 for the 4 GB version:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814137124

AMD has said all RX 560's with disabled CU's should be clearly marked as such. The only problem is that many people don't know to look for it.

I'd be fine with their decision, if only they'd changed the product name to indicate it. The RX 460 was available in a low-profile form factor, whereas the RX 560 is not. I was hoping the down-spec was intended to enable such cards, but I've not seen one.

[leipero]

That makes r600 ancient (even 5/6000 series) , I really wonder if 6870 would come even close to the rx550 or 460, since on paper it is quite superior to those GPU's, that 29Gpixels/s (and 134400 MB/s memory) makes it perfect for 1080p resolutions where 460/550 clearely lag behind. I'm sure in most cases 460/550 would outperform 6870 in modern titles because of drivers as it was the case with recent tests here:

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=xplane11-amd-nvidia&num=2

http://www.hwcompare.com/34342/radeon-hd-6870-vs-radeon-rx-550/

http://www.hwcompare.com/32791/radeon-hd-6870-vs-radeon-rx-460/

[Mabhatter]

Strange that the RX 550 is sometimes faster than the RX 560. This should not be. Also R7 260 (X) is definitely an older model (and even hard to get by these days?). I wonder if that is something in the driver or if they actually hit a CPU limit or a different bottleneck during the tests.

I have to agree on the RX 560. It should be toward the top of the pack. It has more of everything than the 550.., unless you got one of the 560’s that’s really a “551” with a bunch of its paths turned off. There’s a serious problem with drivers or apps not seeing that GPU correctly.

[AnonymousCoward]

RX 550 was new - no RX 400 equivalent. RX 570 had the biggest specs jump vs. the RX 400 series, and RX 580 was the top card. So, it makes sense that they would overshadow the RX 560.

RX 470 to 570: base clock 926 to 1168 MHz, boost 1206 to 1244 MHz. That seems to be all (http://www.amd.com/en/products/graphics/radeon-rx-470 vs. http://www.amd.com/en/products/graphics/radeon-rx-570).

RX 460 to 560: base clock 1090 to 1175MHz, boost 1200 to 1275 MHz, and (originally) stream processors 896 to 1024 (http://www.amd.com/en/products/graphics/radeon-rx-460 vs. http://www.amd.com/en/products/graphics/radeon-rx-560). Seems a pretty similar jump to me.

Not rare or expensive. They're one of the GPUs least-affected by the mining surge - Newegg has a 1024-shader RX 560 for $120:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814137260

Annoyingly, it'l cost you another $30 for the 4 GB version:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...82E16814137124

Those are also far from what I'd (looking at above specs) call "decent clocks", since they have only 1196 MHz boost, and the 2 GB is not in stock.

Now looking at RX 560s in stock in Europe with at least 1200 MHz boost: https://geizhals.eu/?cat=gra16_512&v...+2406+-+RX+560

Only six cards, two of them below the 1275 MHz boost on AMDs site, and only one of them available in more than ten shops. And the prices are still 30-40€ higher than they were supposed to be when announced to replace the 460s.

[coder]

That makes r600 ancient (even 5/6000 series) , I really wonder if 6870 would come even close to the rx550 or 460, since on paper it is quite superior to those GPU's, that 29Gpixels/s (and 134400 MB/s memory) makes it perfect for 1080p resolutions where 460/550 clearely lag behind. I'm sure in most cases 460/550 would outperform 6870 in modern titles

Polaris makes more efficient use of its memory bandwidth due to texture compression and more L2 cache. It has several iterations of tessellation improvements, which likely also help with more recent titles.

But I agree, it'd be nice to see how a GCN 1.0 (Pitcairn) or VLIW5 (Barts or Cypress) compared.

[coder]

I have to agree on the RX 560. It should be toward the top of the pack. It has more of everything than the 550.., unless you got one of the 560’s that’s really a “551” with a bunch of its paths turned off. There’s a serious problem with drivers or apps not seeing that GPU correctly.

A lot of the cases where it's lower seem to be CPU-bound, with the AMD driver seeming to suffer more CPU overhead than Nvidia.

Anyway, RX 560 has the same memory bandwidth and ROPs as the RX 550. Even the nerfed RX 460-equivalent, which just has 2 of its 16 CU's disabled.

[mphuZ]

Serious Sam 3 BFE Linux port is TERRIBLE, really, really bad. You need a supercomputer to run that at acceptable framerate on Linux.

No. Serious Sam 3: BFE Fusion.

Where's the link? Querying google with "benchmark Windows 10 HD7850 serious sam 3 vulkan" comes up with nothing.

My computer is "link"

[AnonymousCoward]

I did notice the 570's slightly higher memory clocks after writing above post, but if I edit it it'll probably need to be moderated again because of the links.