On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:18:44 +0100, Roland Scheidegger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since 2 people have asked for it, here are some quick numbers for r200 > dri vs. fglrx. > r200 dri is using 45MB local tex heap (I believe fglrx reseverves pretty > much anything for textures too, so that's only fair...). btw fglrx > certainly has made some progress, what I noticed is at least 2d > subjectively feels much faster (in fact, previously it felt about the > same as when you used ACCEL_MMIO with the radeon driver, but now it > feels pretty much the same as with the open source driver). > fglrx might be at an unfair disadvantage, I think it is not using > pageflip. Don't know if it's using hyperz, last time I checked (with > glxtest) it didn't seem to use that on my setup neither (but that was > with an older driver). I suspect it still doesn't, at least not always, > since glxgears (which gets a HUGE boost with hyperz) is now over two > times faster with the r200 driver. > r200 dri uses xorg cvs head, with dri driver from Mesa cvs head, with > color tiling, texture tiling, hyperz and whatever else I could find > boosting performance :-). > fglrx uses XFree86 4.3.99.902 (from suse 9.1), with stock configuration, > except I needed to correct the bus id and switched it to external gart. > I don't know of any options which would boost performance. > Desktop resolution is 1280x1924, 85Hz. > > Q3 demo four fullscreen 1024x768: > r200 dri 1): 129 fps > r200 dri 2): 150 fps > fglrx: 118 fps > > Q3 windowed 1024x768 > r200 dri 1): 125 fps > r200 dri 2): 145 fps > fglrx 3): 108 fps > > rtcw demo checkpoint fullscreen 1024x768 > r200 dri 1): 85 fps > r200 dri 2): 95 fps > fglrx 4): 89 fps > fglrx 5): 78 fps > > ut2k3 flyby-antalus, low/average/high > r200 dri: 15.750896 / 37.862827 / 281.284637 fps > fglrx: 30.838823 / 78.981781 / 688.162048 fps > > Ok now the interesting part: > Did I already mention there is a massive performance problem with vertex > arrays in ut2k3 with the r200 driver? It is really really bad. > > Remark 4) 5): 4) is the first benchmark run after the game is started, > 5) are all subsequent runs. I don't know why fglrx is always faster on > the first run with rtcw, but it behaved like that two years ago already. > Remark 3): It is really impossible to run 3d applications correctly at a > screen resolution of 1280x1024 with 85Hz on my card with fglrx, > independant of the 3d application. There is a lot of flicker going on > around the screen. AFAIK this still is the bug with insufficient > bandwidth allocation for scanout, which was fixed in the open source > radeon driver ages ago (by an ati employee, no less!). > > And now the really interesting thing: > The results marked with 1) are obtained BEFORE running fglrx, the result > marked with 2) AFTER running fglrx, i.e. when I did not reboot between > running the fglrx driver and the radeon driver (which in the past lead > to lockups, but driver switching now seems to work fine, in both > directions). This was a completely repeatable effect, I even figured out > that starting the X server with fglrx is not enough, but a simple > glxinfo when it's running triggers it. > Any ideas what's causing this? Maybe fglrx reconfigures the card's > caches or something like that? It would be nice if we could get that > additional 10-15% performance, especially if it is as simple as writing > a single register...
compare a reg dump (script from Hui): http://www.botchco.com/alex/radeon/mergedfb/cvs/DRI/hy0/radeon_dump.tgz Alex > > Roland > ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
