ATI performance is worse in Linux than in Windows

Davigetto · 2010-10-03 20:27:19

Hello,

I am using the catalyst driver (version 10.9), with xorg 1.8. Playing some demanding games like 0 A.D shows a lot worse performance on Arch than on Windows (with the same game). My ATI card is an ATI HD 4350.

Is this difference in performance normal? Is there any way to make Arch's graphic processing match Windows's?

I attach my xorg.conf:

Section "ServerLayout"
    Identifier     "aticonfig Layout"
    Screen      0  "aticonfig-Screen[0]-0" 0 0
EndSection

Section "Module"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
    Identifier   "aticonfig-Monitor[0]-0"
    Option        "VendorName" "ATI Proprietary Driver"
    Option        "ModelName" "Generic Autodetecting Monitor"
    Option        "DPMS" "true"
EndSection

Section "Device"
    Identifier  "aticonfig-Device[0]-0"
    Driver      "fglrx"
    BusID       "PCI:1:0:0"
EndSection

Section "Screen"
    Identifier "aticonfig-Screen[0]-0"
    Device     "aticonfig-Device[0]-0"
    Monitor    "aticonfig-Monitor[0]-0"
    DefaultDepth     24
    SubSection "Display"
        Viewport   0 0
        Depth     24
    EndSubSection
EndSection

karol · 2010-10-03 20:34:14

This has nothing to do with Arch, it's all about the drivers Are you using the same drivers (catalyst version 10.9) on Windows?.

Davigetto · 2010-10-03 20:35:44

karol wrote:

This has nothing to do with Arch, it's all about the drivers Are you using the same drivers (catalyst version 10.9) on Windows?.

Yes, version 10.9 in windows too.

graysky · 2010-10-03 20:35:54

I don't think 1.8 uses xorg.conf at all. You can probably safely rename it to xorg.conf.old and see if X still loads up. Are there other options for ATI drivers you can try? What about software based settings? I am an nvidia guy so I can't help beyond asking those questions.

Darksoul71 · 2010-10-03 20:59:49

It would be interesting to see what a "glxinfo | grep renderer" brings.
May be your fglrx isn´t loaded correctly ?

Normally you should see somewhat "on par" performance between Windows and Linux. At least if you use fglrx under Linux.

Davigetto · 2010-10-03 21:04:09

Darksoul71 wrote:

It would be interesting to see what a "glxinfo | grep renderer" brings.
May be your fglrx isn´t loaded correctly ?
Normally you should see somewhat "on par" performance between Windows and Linux. At least if you use fglrx under Linux.

$ glxinfo | grep renderer
OpenGL renderer string: ATI Radeon HD 4300/4500 Series

flamelab · 2010-10-03 21:05:43

Fglrx is a piece of garbage. You are lucky that you can have a display on Linux with that.

Darksoul71 · 2010-10-03 21:17:14

@Davigetto:
Hm, sound like fglrx is loaded correctly. Strange. Check dmesg output and your logs if you see any hint on problems.

flamelab wrote:

Fglrx is a piece of garbage. You are lucky that you can have a display on Linux with that.

True, but unless radeon gets a big feature and speed boost fglrx is the only option under Linux to get maximum performance.
At least unless you plug a NVidia card in your mobo.

For now even the "bleeding edge" radeon drivers for R600 chips is mostly only usable for older games (Quake, ioquake, UT2k4).

Davigetto · 2010-10-03 21:46:25

Darksoul71 wrote:

@Davigetto:
Hm, sound like fglrx is loaded correctly. Strange. Check dmesg output and your logs if you see any hint on problems.
flamelab wrote:
Fglrx is a piece of garbage. You are lucky that you can have a display on Linux with that.
True, but unless radeon gets a big feature and speed boost fglrx is the only option under Linux to get maximum performance.
At least unless you plug a NVidia card in your mobo.
For now even the "bleeding edge" radeon drivers for R600 chips is mostly only usable for older games (Quake, ioquake, UT2k4).

Well, I don't see anything strange in dmesg. In fact, when I said "performance", I meant "30 fps on Windows, 17-20 fps on Linux".

Maybe is a merely driver problem, but I just want to know wheter I am alone in this kind of problem and more people experiences the same.

Last edited by Davigetto (2010-10-03 21:52:58)

ChemBro · 2010-10-03 21:51:34

I used this Unigine Heaven Benchmark and specifically the OpenGL renderer and the performance was better in Linux than in Windows (not much, but it was better, at least for me).

Only the Direct3D-renderer in Windows was better than the OpenGL-renderer.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-10-03 20:27:19

ATI performance is worse in Linux than in Windows

#2 2010-10-03 20:34:14

Re: ATI performance is worse in Linux than in Windows

#3 2010-10-03 20:35:44

Re: ATI performance is worse in Linux than in Windows

#4 2010-10-03 20:35:54

Re: ATI performance is worse in Linux than in Windows

#5 2010-10-03 20:59:49

Re: ATI performance is worse in Linux than in Windows

#6 2010-10-03 21:04:09

Re: ATI performance is worse in Linux than in Windows

#7 2010-10-03 21:05:43

Re: ATI performance is worse in Linux than in Windows

#8 2010-10-03 21:17:14

Re: ATI performance is worse in Linux than in Windows

#9 2010-10-03 21:46:25

Re: ATI performance is worse in Linux than in Windows

#10 2010-10-03 21:51:34

Re: ATI performance is worse in Linux than in Windows

Board footer