Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

20-Way NVIDIA/AMD Vulkan Linux Gaming Performance Comparison

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

  • 20-Way NVIDIA/AMD Vulkan Linux Gaming Performance Comparison

    Phoronix: 20-Way NVIDIA/AMD Vulkan Linux Gaming Performance Comparison

    For those curious about the current performance state for the recent wave of Vulkan-powered Linux games, which so far are primarily Linux game ports from Feral Interactive, aside from Valve's Dota 2 and Croteam's games, here are some fresh benchmarks using twenty different graphics cards on the latest drivers.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=26640

  • #2
    Typos:

    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    the GTX 1060 . RX 580 and better
    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    older/loewer-end graphics cards.
    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    The GTX 1070 beating out the GTX 1070
    The GTX 1070 is beating itself!

    Comment


    • #3
      Proprietary Radeon Software driver for AMD would have performed better.

      Comment


      • #4
        Radeon R7 260X: radeon.si_support=0 amdgpu.si_support=1
        Should be "cik_support". Are that tests ok?

        Originally posted by humbug View Post
        Proprietary Radeon Software driver for AMD would have performed better.
        The kernel driver is the same - AMDGPU.
        OpenGL: Catalyst (fglrx) is slower than radeonsi.
        Vulkan: AMDVLK is faster than RADV. And AMDVLK is contributed to open source.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by humbug View Post
          Proprietary Radeon Software driver for AMD would have performed better.
          On Vega you could be right, but on the other AMD cards the proprietary driver would be worse.

          Comment


          • #6
            The Vega 64 minimum framerates seem way ahead of everything else (especially on Mad Max), I'd love to see the 0.1% low (a.k.a. 99.9th percentile frame time) numbers for a comparison like this.

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around GTX 1080 Ti pushing 151.36 FPS on DOTA @ 1080p.

              And then pushing 147.83 FPS on DOTA @ 4k.

              That's 400% as many pixels, what dirty tricks or meaning does this have.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ElectricPrism View Post
                I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around GTX 1080 Ti pushing 151.36 FPS on DOTA @ 1080p.

                And then pushing 147.83 FPS on DOTA @ 4k.

                That's 400% as many pixels, what dirty tricks or meaning does this have.
                That the graphics card is no longer the limiting element.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by AlB80 View Post
                  The kernel driver is the same - AMDGPU.
                  OpenGL: Catalyst (fglrx) is slower than radeonsi.
                  Vulkan: AMDVLK is faster than RADV. And AMDVLK is contributed to open source.
                  The vulkan driver from amdgpu-pro is supposedly largely the same as amdvlk but it uses a proprietary shader compiler that IIRC has provided a decent performance advantage in some past benchmarks (but in some it also produced worse results).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by AlB80 View Post
                    Vulkan: AMDVLK is faster than RADV. And AMDVLK is contributed to open source.
                    That's false, at least as of the last tests Michael posted.

                    AMDVLK < RADV < AMDVLK PRO (or whatever you call the proprietary version)

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X