On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 05:43 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Gilboa Davara wrote: > > Might I remind everyone here that Phoronix was the first to offer a > > comprehensive benchmark suite to the OSS world. > > On the other hand, they actively hurt Free Software by continuously > providing free advertising for the latest and "greatest" graphics hardware > with only proprietary drivers (at least for OpenGL), of course benchmarked > with the proprietary drivers and touting their features, while focusing > very little on Free drivers. There's the occasional article about Free > drivers, but even those are sometimes mixed articles like "news from ATI" > where it talks partly about the Free drivers and partly about > fglrx/Catalyst, and they regularly contain statements like "While there has > been a lot of great news this week surrounding the open-source ATI graphics > stack on Linux, there is still a fair amount of work left and this work is > not immediately the miracle driver for ATI Radeon customers." which promote > proprietary driver use. And most importantly, there are also few to no > benchmarks with Free drivers. I'd really like comparative benchmarks of > graphics cards using exclusively Free drivers so I can choose the fastest > of those. (I only know of one site doing such a benchmark and they use > glxgears as their "benchmark", so I don't trust their results at all.) Sorry. But you are dead wrong. I subscribed to Phoronix' RSS feed and at least 1/3-1/2 of their news stories are on OSS driver (mostly Intel and ATI) driver development - far more than any other OSS new site. [1] However, the sad truth is that -currently- neither xorg-drv-intel nor xorg-x11-drv-ati / xorg-x11-drv-radeonhd are capable of generating competitive 3D performance (Especially the recent GEM'ed versions of xorg-drv-intel) and far less mature than, say, nvidia.ko. Asking Phoronix not to report this and/or skew the benchmarks simply because the results are politically inconvenient to us is, in my view, simply unacceptable. Having said all that, I doubt that Phoronix stand concerning binary drives is related to their Apache results... > > and no, glxgears is not a benchmark! > > Indeed, glxgears really sucks as as a benchmark, Phoronix's benchmark suite > (as imperfect as it is) is definitely more useful. Oh, there's a start :) - Gilboa http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla% 3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=95j&q=site%3Awww.phoronix.com+%28%2BIntel+AND+% 2BGEM%29+OR+%2Bradeonhd+OR+%2Bxorg-drv-ati should generate >4000 hits. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
