Significant performance difference xf86-video-ati <> Catalyst?

AKL · 2011-02-14 13:27:53

Hi,

I'm using xf86-video-ati with a X1950XT, AMD X2 6000, 4 GB RAM on Arch64 and I never hat any performance problems with games like Urban Terror or Return to Castle Wolfenstein. The first disapointment was Assault Cube, which wasn't playable at all, even on small resolutions with reduced details. It became worse with Joint Operations, installed via WINE. It is not faster that a slideshow, but runs flawless on the same hardware when Windows XP is used.

So I wonder: Would be all those problems solved with switching to Catalyst? Usually there would be other drawbacks, so I ask here first. Or do I have a general problem with my graphics setup?

flamelab · 2011-02-14 15:23:12

You can't use Catalyst with that card, since support support for cards R5xx and older has been dropped since v.9.3 of catalyst. And we are in 11.1 now

xf86-video-ati is your only choice.

Cdh · 2011-02-14 15:36:36

You can try using the radeon repository and mesa-full-gallium / lib32-mesa-full-gallium:
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=79509

AKL · 2011-02-15 06:51:40

Thanks, I wasnt' aware that support for my card was dropped. However this leads to the question, if my system should run those games or if it is normal that it got problems. Has someone a similar system?

iFSS · 2011-02-15 13:24:51

Mine is similar (X1800XT, X2 5600, 3GB RAM, x86-64). I used to have the same poor 3D performance using the classic mesa drivers. Using the Gallium drivers from the above mentioned repo (& using page flipping and enabling HyperZ for games), I'm getting excellent 3D performance. There's still some rough edges & high CPU use, but it's more than satisfactory.

AKL · 2011-02-16 13:24:27

Interesting information, thanks!

Arch Linux

#1 2011-02-14 13:27:53

Significant performance difference xf86-video-ati <> Catalyst?

#2 2011-02-14 15:23:12

Re: Significant performance difference xf86-video-ati <> Catalyst?

#3 2011-02-14 15:36:36

Re: Significant performance difference xf86-video-ati <> Catalyst?

#4 2011-02-15 06:51:40

Re: Significant performance difference xf86-video-ati <> Catalyst?

#5 2011-02-15 13:24:51

Re: Significant performance difference xf86-video-ati <> Catalyst?

#6 2011-02-16 13:24:27

Re: Significant performance difference xf86-video-ati <> Catalyst?

Board footer