Go Back   nV News Forums > Linux Support Forums > NVIDIA Linux

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-28-10, 02:50 AM   #13
Lithorus
Registered User
 
Lithorus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 783
Default Re: Performance regressions with 256.25 driver?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiresquire View Post
What has that got to do with THIS benchmark on an nvidia driver and nvidia card?

Do you see anything specific to this article/benchmark? If so, point it out. If not.....

ws
For starters he should atleast test on more than just 1 gfx card.
Lithorus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-10, 03:46 AM   #14
Sean_W
Registered User
 
Sean_W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,423
Default Re: Performance regressions with 256.25 driver?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiresquire View Post
What has that got to do with THIS benchmark on an nvidia driver and nvidia card?

Do you see anything specific to this article/benchmark? If so, point it out. If not.....

ws
As said above and it was done on a laptop mobile GPU, Ideally it would be better on a high and low end PC.
Sean_W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-10, 04:26 AM   #15
Licaon
Registered User
 
Licaon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Between the keyboard and the chair.
Posts: 490
Default Re: Performance regressions with 256.25 driver?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooninite View Post
Example: his filesystem benchmark "showdown" between ext3/4, xfs, etc. was done in such a way that some file systems were not tuned properly or the benchmark itself was not performed correctly.
that's the point: to test file systems at the DEFAULT settings ( provided by the distro ) because a generic user will use the defaults while the specialised ( server, workstation, etc ) user will know and want to optimise the settings as s/he sees fit anyway
Licaon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-10, 04:35 AM   #16
gonzo_s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58
Default Re: Performance regressions with 256.25 driver?

Lol, Phoronix...
They always post monstruous test results of 'comparing the uncomparable'.

2davelaser: Stop pulling that sh**, especially here. Better do your own measurements and post complete results (hardware, distribution etc.) for us to see. Never read that crap.
gonzo_s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-10, 04:42 AM   #17
wiresquire
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 81
Default Re: Performance regressions with 256.25 driver?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean_W View Post
As said above and it was done on a laptop mobile GPU, Ideally it would be better on a high and low end PC.
Please explain why that is so? The phoronix article basically says "We tested 1 laptop, and there is a performance regression on it. To quote from the article:
"At least in select software/hardware configurations the NVIDIA 256.25 Linux display driver does carry some hefty performance regressions".

It's entirely valid for phoronix to post the result from the machine they tested. If you disagree with their methodology, then say why. If you don't see regressions or see improvements, then that's great, and post your specs. Don't bitch at phoronix for posting theirs.

My reply above was specifically to moroninite, who started raving on about filesystem benchmarks when the benchmark in question is about nvidia cards and the 256.x driver.

BTW, Sean_W, why do you say it would be better testing on a high and low end PC vs a laptop mobile GPU?

ws
wiresquire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-10, 05:06 AM   #18
weltall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 115
Default Re: Performance regressions with 256.25 driver?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean_W View Post
As said above and it was done on a laptop mobile GPU, Ideally it would be better on a high and low end PC.
it's not even that I've a mobile gpu way worse than the supposedly tested one (8600MGT 512MB) and I noticed improvements there.
weltall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-10, 05:48 AM   #19
Sean_W
Registered User
 
Sean_W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,423
Default Re: Performance regressions with 256.25 driver?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiresquire View Post
Please explain why that is so? The phoronix article basically says "We tested 1 laptop, and there is a performance regression on it. To quote from the article:
"At least in select software/hardware configurations the NVIDIA 256.25 Linux display driver does carry some hefty performance regressions".

It's entirely valid for phoronix to post the result from the machine they tested. If you disagree with their methodology, then say why. If you don't see regressions or see improvements, then that's great, and post your specs. Don't bitch at phoronix for posting theirs.

My reply above was specifically to moroninite, who started raving on about filesystem benchmarks when the benchmark in question is about nvidia cards and the 256.x driver.

BTW, Sean_W, why do you say it would be better testing on a high and low end PC vs a laptop mobile GPU?

ws
I never said it's invalid but I would have 'preferred' to see a desktop setup test. Linux users generally run lower system specs due to Linux being lighter. I like to see a Fermi test as well with the new betas.
Sean_W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-10, 06:20 AM   #20
firewalker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ellas
Posts: 32
Default Re: Performance regressions with 256.25 driver?

From what I've seen, at many Phoronix benchmarks there are big differences between the results of the various benchmarks. IMHO either there are not enough "benchmark runs" to get accurate results or he uses the average between the "benchmark runs".

There are dozens process running or sleeping in the background especially when running a "Default Desktop". How do you know that something else didn't decide to run or to sleep when benchmark was running.

But it is hard to tell without some profiling/perfomance information which would make the benchmarks actually helpful to developers or to distro maintainers.


Quote:
As said above and it was done on a laptop mobile GPU, Ideally it would be better on a high and low end PC.
Remember hardware is not free and high end hardware costs a lot.
firewalker is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 05-28-10, 06:30 AM   #21
Sean_W
Registered User
 
Sean_W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,423
Default Re: Performance regressions with 256.25 driver?

I don't trust Phoronix benchmarking for one, based on a number of past benchmarking usage and these guys are such noobs, they use Ubuntu pre-compiled PPA kernels.
Sean_W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-10, 06:48 AM   #22
wiresquire
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 81
Default Re: Performance regressions with 256.25 driver?

So what are you guys saying?

a) The results for this test of the 256 driver:
[ ] are rubbish. You don't believe the Phoronix results.
[ ] are OK. I believe the Phoronix results.

b) Performance regressions for the 256 driver:
[ ] i) don't exist. On any systems at all.
[ ] ii) exist, but only on mobile systems.
[ ] iii) exist only on the specific laptop that Phoronix tested.

c) That the reason for these results for the 256 driver are:
[ ] i) Phoronix setup is non-standard and cannot be reproduced
[ ] ii) Phoronix benchmarks run on a standard desktop and are subject to spurious background/sleeping/random processes.

Please feel free to check all that apply.


Also I have a question or 2 for you. Please answer each question:
i) Has anyone here ever run the phoronix-test-suite benchmarks for the specific benchies that they ran in this article?
ii) Have you run those benchmarks for the 256 series drivers?
iii) Have you run those benchmarks for any previous driver versions?
iii) If so, report your config, relevant settings and results.

ws
wiresquire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-10, 07:13 AM   #23
Sean_W
Registered User
 
Sean_W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,423
Default Re: Performance regressions with 256.25 driver?

Phoronix make too much drama out of this. Regression in a testing release? NO WAY!

Testing pre-release software and then claim there is some kind of regression or "disaster" (as in the 2.6.35 kernel tests) is just plain silly without identifying what it is.

I would agree that people should post their benchmarks on games with both drivers, specifically Openarea.
Sean_W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-10, 08:19 AM   #24
Licaon
Registered User
 
Licaon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Between the keyboard and the chair.
Posts: 490
Default Re: Performance regressions with 256.25 driver?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiresquire View Post
i) Has anyone here ever run the phoronix-test-suite benchmarks for the specific benchies that they ran in this article?
ii) Have you run those benchmarks for the 256 series drivers?
iii) Have you run those benchmarks for any previous driver versions?
i) i ran it once in the past, i see no need to get the whole suite just to test one bench
ii) i did ( as previously mentioned ) as others did here: here and here with mixed results as you can see
iii) yep, see above, the test was specifically to see if those finding are ok since i saw better performance while running the composition comparison tests here: Sanctuary demo benchmark edition v2.3 / Tropics Demo v1.3

maybe Phoronix had PowerMizer issues, maybe that mobile GTS250M has issues... we won't know until he gets some more tests with another card preferably a desktop one

/LE: Phoronix: PowerMizer Is Not Likely The Problem In 256.xx Issue
Licaon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.