On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:18:44 +0100, Roland Scheidegger
> 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 22.214.171.1242 (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):