Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

23-Way Graphics Card Comparison With Shadow of the Tomb Raider On Linux

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

  • MasterCATZ
    replied
    I recently decided to upgrade my old R9 290

    the Vega 64 I tried was 20% less performance (Superposition Benchmark score 1599) than my Under clocked undervolted R9 290 (Superposition Benchmark score 1983)
    but was more power efficient ~3 watts idle

    so then tried an RX 570 (Superposition Benchmark score 2780) it out performed my R9 290 by ~ 30% but idled @ 30 watts vs my R9 290 12watts

    is their a reason why the Vega would be 50% slower than the RX 570 instead of 50% faster ?

    VGA: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] Ellesmere [Radeon RX 470/480/570/570X/580/580X/590] (rev ef)
    OpenGL driver: radeonsi
    Kernel driver: amdgpu
    name of display: :0
    display: :0 screen: 0
    direct rendering: Yes
    Extended renderer info (GLX_MESA_query_renderer):
    Vendor: X.Org (0x1002)
    Device: Radeon RX 570 Series (POLARIS10, DRM 3.40.0, 5.10.0-051000-generic, LLVM 11.0.0) (0x67df)
    Version: 20.2.6
    Accelerated: yes
    Video memory: 4096MB
    Unified memory: no
    Preferred profile: core (0x1)
    Max core profile version: 4.6
    Max compat profile version: 4.6
    Max GLES1 profile version: 1.1
    Max GLES[23] profile version: 3.2
    Memory info (GL_ATI_meminfo):
    VBO free memory - total: 3567 MB, largest block: 3567 MB
    VBO free aux. memory - total: 4012 MB, largest block: 4012 MB
    Texture free memory - total: 3567 MB, largest block: 3567 MB
    Texture free aux. memory - total: 4012 MB, largest block: 4012 MB
    Renderbuffer free memory - total: 3567 MB, largest block: 3567 MB
    Renderbuffer free aux. memory - total: 4012 MB, largest block: 4012 MB
    Memory info (GL_NVX_gpu_memory_info):
    Dedicated video memory: 4096 MB
    Total available memory: 8192 MB
    Currently available dedicated video memory: 3567 MB
    OpenGL vendor string: X.Org
    OpenGL renderer string: Radeon RX 570 Series (POLARIS10, DRM 3.40.0, 5.10.0-051000-generic, LLVM 11.0.0)
    OpenGL core profile version string: 4.6 (Core Profile) Mesa 20.2.6
    OpenGL core profile shading language version string: 4.60
    OpenGL core profile context flags: (none)
    OpenGL core profile profile mask: core profile
    OpenGL version string: 4.6 (Compatibility Profile) Mesa 20.2.6
    OpenGL shading language version string: 4.60
    OpenGL context flags: (none)
    OpenGL profile mask: compatibility profile
    OpenGL ES profile version string: OpenGL ES 3.2 Mesa 20.2.6
    OpenGL ES profile shading language version string: OpenGL ES GLSL ES 3.20




    Leave a comment:


  • wildefyr
    replied
    Originally posted by pete910 View Post
    Something amiss with the scores ,

    Manjaro

    All Stock clocked
    3900x
    VII GPU
    mesa ACO
    1080p

    Highest preset no AA

    118 average

    Phoronix has it at 102

    The fact that a 9900k was used @ 5gh should have yielded even better result than what I got I would have thought.
    I've finally had some time to sit down and really get to work on my Radeon VII now, I've managed to get an average of 131 FPS at 1080p, highest settings, no AA, using the following:

    Clocks: 1900mhz core, 1100mhz memory, 1050 mv
    Mesa: mesa-aco-git 20.0.0_devel.20200115
    Kernel: 5.4.8-17-tkg-pds
    Compositor: None running at the time.

    I'd love to try and push my Radeon VII a little further, but it seems to be unstable when I push either core or memory clocks up from there, and pumping in more voltage doesn't help either.

    Leave a comment:


  • Soul_keeper
    replied
    Average: 73.53 Frames Per Second
    Maximum: 143.5

    ryzen 2700x @ 4.025GHz 3000mem vegaFE @ 1350/988

    1080P maximum detail no AA

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by pete910 View Post
    Something amiss with the scores ,

    Manjaro

    All Stock clocked
    3900x
    VII GPU
    mesa ACO
    1080p

    Highest preset no AA

    118 average

    Phoronix has it at 102

    The fact that a 9900k was used @ 5gh should have yielded even better result than what I got I would have thought.
    That's why.

    Unlike other distributions that focus on LTS versions, Server versions, Paid versions, CLI only, and more in addition to their desktop versions, Manjaro only focuses on their desktops and a minimal CLI installer that's mainly used for getting alternate desktops up and running...stuff not XFCE, KDE, or Gnome.

    Being damn-near bleeding edge and only focusing their attention on desktop usage gives them a slight edge for gaming.

    All that makes Manjaro the quintessential Linux Desktop for Gaming OS.

    Also, there's a very good chance that you're using some AUR packages built with march=native and those really help give Arch & Manjaro a performance edge over most general purpose distributions.

    Leave a comment:


  • pete910
    replied
    Something amiss with the scores ,

    Manjaro

    All Stock clocked
    3900x
    VII GPU
    mesa ACO
    1080p

    Highest preset no AA

    118 average

    Phoronix has it at 102

    The fact that a 9900k was used @ 5gh should have yielded even better result than what I got I would have thought.

    Leave a comment:


  • ernstp
    replied
    Expect some bulk-move enabled benchmarks in a couple of days then! :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • ObiWan
    replied
    Well at least the 5700XT is probably hindered by no using llvm10 or aco

    R9 3900X with 5700XT on Highest 1080p:
    aco: 116 fps
    llvm: 113 fps

    Leave a comment:


  • Imout0
    replied
    I must be doing something wrong:

    i7 4790K Stock
    Manjaro Linux
    Linux 5.4 rc7
    16 GB RAM
    RX 580X 8GB
    mesa-aco 19.3 devel

    1080p High Preset no AA:

    Phoronix: 59.4 FPS
    Me: 75 FPS

    1080p Highest Preset no AA:

    Phoronix: 54.9 FPS
    Me: 69 FPS

    Leave a comment:


  • Haxk20
    replied
    Im getting 35fps on medium-high settings on RX560X which is little more then the article. But thats because of linux-next kernel. 5.5 has some nice optimizations coming in and it can really be seen in games.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post

    The results in the article are different from what I expected. I am getting 84 FPS at the "low" preset with RX 570, while the article is getting only 64.6 FPS. The RX 580 in the article achieved 77.4 FPS, which is still slower than 84 FPS.

    Tweaks on my side:
    • The RX 570 is overclocked to RX 580 shader/memory clocks (RX 570 has the same chip as RX 580 (with 256 shaders disabled (mainly because of market segmentation (which is artificial))))
    • Kernel 5.3 with bulk moves patch from kernel 5.4
    • Runtime and compile-time CPU mitigations are disabled
    • Mesa 19.3.0-rc3 (article: Mesa 20.0.0-devel)
    I do similar tweaks and get slightly higher results than what's posted here from time to time.

    I also run with some undervolts that really assist in mitigating thermal throttling. I think it's worth mentioning that because quite a few MSI RX 580s like mine have negative reviews and almost all mention thermal issues...and I'd have the same negative review if I didn't tweak my settings and just to get the thermals under control.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X