On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Chia-I Wu <olva...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Chia-I Wu <olva...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Mark Mueller <markkmuel...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Paul Berry <stereotype...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> On 12 September 2013 22:06, Chia-I Wu <olva...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> From: Chia-I Wu <o...@lunarg.com> > > >> > >> > >> This scenario is where I'd place my bets, especially given that the > numbers > >> are based on Xonotic. I benchmarked this patch using Xonotic on Bay > Trail as > >> is and by replacing !brw->is_haswell with !brw->is_baytrail. With ultra > and > >> ultimate levels at medium and high resolutions, the results were all > >> essentially the same at comparable resolutions and quality levels. > > Isn't Bay Trail based on Ivy Bridge? > For Bay Trail, this might help you > > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2013-September/044288.html > > if you are interested. > Testing with Bay Trail shows no performance improvement with this patch. Most likely there are one or more CPU bottlenecks on Bay Tail that hide a majority of the performance gains of this change.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
