View previous topic :: View next topic |
Are you happy with your ATI Radeon 3D performance? |
Yes, it is only a bit slower than in window$ |
|
12% |
[ 20 ] |
Yes, it is indeed faster than in window$ |
|
6% |
[ 10 ] |
No, those drivers are bull****, I'm getting poor framerates |
|
71% |
[ 112 ] |
Uh? What does a video card do? Play videos? |
|
9% |
[ 15 ] |
|
Total Votes : 157 |
|
Author |
Message |
placeholder Advocate
Joined: 07 Feb 2004 Posts: 2500
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
See, UT2004 has what they call processor "clips" in which things have to stop for a sec and catch up even on the top-of-the-line processors when running Windows. However, Linux doesn't have that problem, and the game works faster. I know for certain that my 3D performance in Linux is better than ever in Windows, and my friend was getting about 40fps in Linux with his card that he got about 20 at the highest with in Windows. NVIDIA supports Linux a lot, and maybe even more than it does Windows. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
_dook_master_ Apprentice
Joined: 16 Sep 2003 Posts: 295 Location: Isla Vista, CA
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Code: | 36229 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7245.800 FPS
35966 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7193.200 FPS
35670 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7134.000 FPS |
9800 Pro. I'd say its alright. Better in Windows, but I can play FarCry in Gentoo and it looks beautiful, so I can't complain. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Paranoid Apprentice
Joined: 07 Jan 2004 Posts: 290 Location: Portland, ME
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Shift,
The card is a little tweaked.... Originally it was a OEM 8500 only clocked at 225/225 where as ATI 8500s are 275/275. So I flashed it with a custom ATI 8500 bios with the clock speeds changed to 285/285. A little voltage mod and some heatsinks on the mem chips (which are the slower 4.Xns vs. the 3.9ns mem the ATI's have). Amazingly it hasn't fried yet, been running it this way for 3+ years! Man I need to upgrade.... _________________ A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
William S. Burroughs |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tupperworx n00b
Joined: 18 Apr 2004 Posts: 8 Location: Wiesbaden, Germany
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@All: c'm on, glxgears isnt a serious comparable benchmark! So please don't take it for real...
Just resize the running Window and you can double/triple your glxgears fps |
|
Back to top |
|
|
IvanHoe l33t
Joined: 05 Oct 2002 Posts: 658
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tupperworx wrote: | @All: c'm on, glxgears isnt a serious comparable benchmark! So please don't take it for real...
Just resize the running Window and you can double/triple your glxgears fps |
Well, I don't need glxgears to tell me something's wrong with ati's drivers. I have NWN on a Pentium M 1.7Ghz notebook with GeForce 4200 Go graphics and it outperforms my desktop machine (Athalon64 3400+, Radeon 9800 XT) by a big margin, and it has FSAA turned on where my desktop does not. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lews_Therin l33t
Joined: 03 Oct 2003 Posts: 657 Location: Banned
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
_dook_master_ wrote: | Code: | 36229 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7245.800 FPS
35966 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7193.200 FPS
35670 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7134.000 FPS |
9800 Pro. I'd say its alright. Better in Windows, but I can play FarCry in Gentoo and it looks beautiful, so I can't complain. |
Did you do anything special to get those scores? Any tweaks to XF86Config? I litterally get the same score over, and over, and over...but a bit less than 1000. Can't tell you what it is right now, running Windows, but I think it's around 950. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RedDawn Guru
Joined: 22 Sep 2003 Posts: 368 Location: Los Angeles, California
|
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 1:31 am Post subject: Kewl |
|
|
I know this might not mean much but you never know...
In Windows Xp when i install bzflag and played it with my. 9800 SE PRO 128 MB
I would get around 20-40 frames persecond which sucked.... i gave my Nvidia GeForce MX 440 for that card... ( yeah dumbass ) i though...
But when i installed Gentoo yesturday... Im genting like 120-140 frames persecond... that's twice as fast as my Nvidia card!
So i cant complain...
Specs:
Abit IT7-Max2 v2.0
Pentium 4 3.06Ghz 533FSB
1GB Ram PC2700
ATI 9200 SE PRO 128MB
40GB Seagate HD Raid_Master
80GB Seagate HD Raid_Slave
8.9GB IBM SCSI HD Scsi_Master
52x32x52 Burner
16x52 Dvd-Rom
5.1 Sorround Sound
USB 2.0
Firewire
( not the best but eh... )
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ebrostig Bodhisattva
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 Posts: 3152 Location: Orlando, Fl
|
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure what resolution you run and what program you use to get the framerate.
i was just running glxgears on my new AMD64 with an 9200SE card under xorg-x11 and i get around 1200 fps which is quite a bit more than you get. I run 1280x1024.
Erik _________________ 'Yes, Firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.' |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Spyretto n00b
Joined: 28 Feb 2004 Posts: 50 Location: Tampere/Finland
|
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
i get 3D deceleration with ati drivers for my 9200
the bad thing is that it is a laptop and i can't get rid of it !
NVIDIA offers excellent support even though they are closed source.
I ll have it in mind next time |
|
Back to top |
|
|
shift Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 21 Feb 2004 Posts: 146 Location: Vancouver, Canada
|
Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
shift wrote: | Sapphire-Tech ATI Radeon 9000 Pro 128MB
lspci: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon RV250 If [Radeon 9000]
Kernel 2.6.5, KDE 3.2.1, ati-drivers 3.7.6-r1
Quote: |
bash-2.05b# glxgears
11278 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2255.600 FPS
11557 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2311.400 FPS
11564 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2312.800 FPS
11560 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2312.000 FPS
11527 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2305.400 FPS
|
Quote: |
bash-2.05b# fgl_glxgears
1720 frames in 5.0 seconds = 344.000 FPS
1758 frames in 5.0 seconds = 351.600 FPS
1757 frames in 5.0 seconds = 351.400 FPS
1752 frames in 5.0 seconds = 350.400 FPS
1756 frames in 5.0 seconds = 351.200 FPS
|
|
Alright running Xorg now.
Quote: |
bash-2.05b$ glxgears
11572 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2314.400 FPS
11579 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2315.800 FPS
11574 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2314.800 FPS
11567 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2313.400 FPS
11585 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2317.000 FPS
|
Quote: |
bash-2.05b$ /opt/ati/bin/fgl_glxgears
1790 frames in 5.0 seconds = 358.000 FPS
1832 frames in 5.0 seconds = 366.400 FPS
1830 frames in 5.0 seconds = 366.000 FPS
1832 frames in 5.0 seconds = 366.400 FPS
1830 frames in 5.0 seconds = 366.000 FPS
|
Slightly better results!
Note: The previous test was done on gentoo-dev-sources 2.6.5, reiser3.6 and XFree86. The new test was done on a vanilla 2.6.5 kernel, reiser4, Xorg and KDE 3.2.2. _________________ Wallpapers:
Gentoo Space
Gentoo Infinity
Gentoo Matrix |
|
Back to top |
|
|
shift Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 21 Feb 2004 Posts: 146 Location: Vancouver, Canada
|
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
shift wrote: | shift wrote: | Sapphire-Tech ATI Radeon 9000 Pro 128MB
lspci: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon RV250 If [Radeon 9000]
Kernel 2.6.5, KDE 3.2.1, ati-drivers 3.7.6-r1
Quote: |
bash-2.05b# glxgears
11278 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2255.600 FPS
11557 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2311.400 FPS
11564 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2312.800 FPS
11560 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2312.000 FPS
11527 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2305.400 FPS
|
Quote: |
bash-2.05b# fgl_glxgears
1720 frames in 5.0 seconds = 344.000 FPS
1758 frames in 5.0 seconds = 351.600 FPS
1757 frames in 5.0 seconds = 351.400 FPS
1752 frames in 5.0 seconds = 350.400 FPS
1756 frames in 5.0 seconds = 351.200 FPS
|
|
Alright running Xorg now.
Quote: |
bash-2.05b$ glxgears
11572 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2314.400 FPS
11579 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2315.800 FPS
11574 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2314.800 FPS
11567 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2313.400 FPS
11585 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2317.000 FPS
|
Quote: |
bash-2.05b$ /opt/ati/bin/fgl_glxgears
1790 frames in 5.0 seconds = 358.000 FPS
1832 frames in 5.0 seconds = 366.400 FPS
1830 frames in 5.0 seconds = 366.000 FPS
1832 frames in 5.0 seconds = 366.400 FPS
1830 frames in 5.0 seconds = 366.000 FPS
|
Slightly better results!
Note: The previous test was done on gentoo-dev-sources 2.6.5, reiser3.6 and XFree86. The new test was done on a vanilla 2.6.5 kernel, reiser4, Xorg and KDE 3.2.2. |
Quote: |
bash-2.05b$ glxgears
11622 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2324.400 FPS
11623 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2324.600 FPS
11622 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2324.400 FPS
11623 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2324.600 FPS
12034 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2406.800 FPS
bash-2.05b$ /opt/ati/bin/fgl_glxgears
1804 frames in 5.0 seconds = 360.800 FPS
1814 frames in 5.0 seconds = 362.800 FPS
1814 frames in 5.0 seconds = 362.800 FPS
1815 frames in 5.0 seconds = 363.000 FPS
1810 frames in 5.0 seconds = 362.000 FPS
|
Same configs as before but with Xorg-6.7.0-r1
Slightly better I guess (except fgl_glxgears), I'm also running more eye candy than before. _________________ Wallpapers:
Gentoo Space
Gentoo Infinity
Gentoo Matrix |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nephren-Ka n00b
Joined: 10 Jun 2002 Posts: 63 Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2004 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Man, ATI drivers in Linux just bite the big one. I ran a timedemo in WinXP, in 1280x1024@32bpp@2xFSAA (no AF)...and I got 35FPS (very intense demo). In linux? I get 15.233FPS with the 3.9.0 Driverset.
My system is no slouch either:
P4 2.4C @3300MHz/1100FSB
1GB PC3500
Radeon 9700np 128MB
2x Seagate 200GB SATA
Kernel 2.6.7(vanilla), ATI 3.9.0 Binary drivers
Ugh, makes me sick. To just post my glxgears scores:
Code: |
16737 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3347.400 FPS
16740 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3348.000 FPS
16741 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3348.200 FPS
|
Now, I know you guys have better vid cards, but they arent THAT much better (ie, 9700pro shouldnt be over DOUBLE my scores!!!)
Could it be because I'm using the 3.9.0 drivers over the 3.2.8 drivers? I can't get the 3.2.8 to compile with 2.6.7 :/ What do you guys think?
EDIT:
I just "downgraded" my drivers to 3.2.8-r2, and WOW what a performance difference! Check this out guys:
Running UTBench in UT2k4, 1280x1024x32@2xFSAA:
WinXP -> 33FPS
Linux -> (3.9.0) -> 15FPS
(3.2.8-r2) -> 23.6 FPS
Big improvement, though still not close to Windows :S (If I run it with no FSAA in linux I get 33FPS, same as windows with 2xFSAA )
Last edited by Nephren-Ka on Sat Jun 26, 2004 10:28 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
syscrash Guru
Joined: 14 Apr 2003 Posts: 541
|
Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2004 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They really aren't too bad for me. I run 3.2.8-r2. The only game that I really play is enemy territory and that runs great. I've also tried the ut2004 demo and that flies too. Radeon 8500LE and Athlon XP 2500+, 1GB ram. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nighty Apprentice
Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Posts: 217 Location: right behind you.
|
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2004 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i find it funny that ati open sourced their drivers yet their drivers crawl.
i believe someone in the linux community should start writting drivers with game performance in mind that pretty much support only the radeon series. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
syscrash Guru
Joined: 14 Apr 2003 Posts: 541
|
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2004 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nighty wrote: | i find it funny that ati open sourced their drivers yet their drivers crawl.
i believe someone in the linux community should start writting drivers with game performance in mind that pretty much support only the radeon series. |
ATI hasn't open sourced their drivers |
|
Back to top |
|
|
placeholder Advocate
Joined: 07 Feb 2004 Posts: 2500
|
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2004 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
syscrash2k wrote: | nighty wrote: | i find it funny that ati open sourced their drivers yet their drivers crawl.
i believe someone in the linux community should start writting drivers with game performance in mind that pretty much support only the radeon series. |
ATI hasn't open sourced their drivers |
Actually they have since there are projects already going to make GFX drivers for the older cards. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pigeon Guru
Joined: 21 Jun 2002 Posts: 307
|
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2004 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They released some of their specs, not open-sourced their drivers.
And the drivers that are being discussed in this thread, the 'ati-drivers' package in portage, is closed source. (and sucks)
My Radeon 9600 isn't even as good as the GeForce 2 it was replacing. (in linux) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
oiper Guru
Joined: 01 May 2003 Posts: 316 Location: Alabama, US
|
Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
ATI 9200SE 128MB
2.6.6
media-video/ati-drivers-3.9.0-r1
Code: | 2965 frames in 5.0 seconds = 593.000 FPS
3491 frames in 5.0 seconds = 698.200 FPS
3491 frames in 5.0 seconds = 698.200 FPS | _________________ www.bearscanfly.org - Because hiking is cool |
|
Back to top |
|
|
-Octane- n00b
Joined: 07 Aug 2003 Posts: 24
|
Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2004 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't done any scientific benchmark but my pc was slow at gaming with a R9700, 3.9 ati drivers and kernel 2.6.5 (dual xeon 2.66 and 1g of ram also)
I tried everything i could, nothing improved my fps , it was around an average of 40fps with ut2004 in 1024x768 32bits everything set to minimum.
Yesterday i took my gf ti4200, and out of the box (i only changed the graphics driver), i got 120-150fps with the same settings.
And glxinfo was correct, glxgears was around 3000fps with the radeon.
My next card will be an nvidia 6800, as i really don't understand why the radeon performance is so bad (sucky drivers i suppose). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
R!tman Veteran
Joined: 18 Dec 2003 Posts: 1303 Location: Zurich, Switzerland
|
Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gaming is the only reason for me to keep windows on my hd. ET runs fine, but in AA I have quite few fps (10-20), in windows much more (40-60, 40 is absolute minimum)
My next pc WILL (!!!) have an nvidia card. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|