On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Mark Mueller <markkmuel...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Chia-I Wu <olva...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Chia-I Wu <olva...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Mark Mueller <markkmuel...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Paul Berry <stereotype...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On 12 September 2013 22:06, Chia-I Wu <olva...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> From: Chia-I Wu <o...@lunarg.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> This scenario is where I'd place my bets, especially given that the >> >> numbers >> >> are based on Xonotic. I benchmarked this patch using Xonotic on Bay >> >> Trail as >> >> is and by replacing !brw->is_haswell with !brw->is_baytrail. With ultra >> >> and >> >> ultimate levels at medium and high resolutions, the results were all >> >> essentially the same at comparable resolutions and quality levels. >> > Isn't Bay Trail based on Ivy Bridge? >> For Bay Trail, this might help you >> >> >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2013-September/044288.html >> >> if you are interested. > > > Testing with Bay Trail shows no performance improvement with this patch. > Most likely there are one or more CPU bottlenecks on Bay Tail that hide a > majority of the performance gains of this change. And no performance lost? It could also be
- the gain from SIMD16 was even out by the math ops - the lowering did not kick in because of one of the conditional checks - the game did not run in Ultra or Ultimate mode I think the discussion belongs to that other thread. > > -- o...@lunarg.com _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
