- Join us
Radeon glmark2 scores
Below are to be found some Radeon scores from the glmark2 benchmark. Version 2014.03 of the benchmark was used, compiled on OpenSuSE 13.1 (gcc 4.8), and run on Ubuntu 16.04 LTS (kernel 4.4.0, Xorg 1.18.3, module version 7.7.0 of free radeon driver, Mesa 11.2.0, DRI2, LLVM 3.8). The default window size of 800x600 was used, and the window manager was fvwm2 (i.e. free of compositing effects). The machines were otherwise idle.
All of the cards were passively cooled, and were purchased for under £50 (some second-hand).
Scores are in frames per second (FPS).
Recently there has been the opportunity to repeat some of the scores using the same binary, but running under Ubuntu 18.04LTS (kernel 4.14.0, Xorg 1.19.6, Mesa 18.0.5, DRI3, LLVM 6.0). For the Terascale cards, these show scores almost a factor of two faster, showing how much of a difference software can make even for a rather mature hardware product. The final column headed 18.04 gives these scores.
|Haswell QC 3.1GHz||PCIe v3 x8||R7 250E||GCN 1||512||800||128 bit GDDR5/4500||4703|
|Ivy Bridge QC 3.3GHz||PCIe v3 x8||HD 7750||GCN 1||512||800||128 bit GDDR5/4500||4610||3984|
|Ivy Bridge QC 3.3GHz||PCIe v2 x8||HD 6670||T'scale 2||480||800||128 bit GDDR5/4000||1757|
|Ivy Bridge QC 3.3GHz||PCIe v2 x8||HD 5670||T'scale 2||400||775||128 bit GDDR5/4000||1719|
|Ryzen 5 QC 3.2GHz||PCIe v2 x16||HD 5670||T'scale 2||400||775||128 bit GDDR5/4000||1494||2975|
|Haswell QC 3.1GHz||PCIe v2 x8||HD 6570||T'scale 2||480||650||128 bit DDR3/1333||968|
|Core2 QC 2.4GHz||PCIe v2 x16||HD 5570||T'scale 2||400||650||128 bit DDR3/1000||634||1371|
|Haswell QC 3.1GHz||PCIe v2 x8||R5 230 Flex||T'scale 2||160||625||64 bit DDR3/1600||542||940|
|Haswell QC 3.1GHz||PCIe v2 x8||HD 6450||T'scale 2||160||625||64 bit DDR3/1333||483|
|Core2 QC 2.4GHz||PCIe v2 x16||HD 5450||T'scale 2||80||650||64 bit DDR3/1333||388|
|Haswell QC 3.1GHz||PCIe v2 x8||HD 5450||T'scale 2||80||650||64 bit DDR3/1333||378|
|Sandy Bridge QC 3.2GHz||PCIe v2 x8||HD 5450||T'scale 2||80||650||64 bit DDR3/1333||378||802|
|Kaby Lake QC 3.5GHz||PCIe v2 x8||R5 230||T'scale 2||160||625||64 bit DDR3/1066||377|
|Core2 DC 2.4GHz||PCIe x16||X550||RV370||4||400?||128 bit DDR/500?||2981,2|
|Athlon II DC 3.0GHz||RS880/HD 4250||T'scale 1||40||500||Hyper & sideport||275|
|Core2 QC 2.83GHz||PCIe x16||HD 3450||T'scale 1||40||600||64 bit DDR2/800||250|
|Core2 QC 2.4GHz||PCIe x16||HD 4350||T'scale 1||80||600||64 bit DDR2/800||246||488|
|Core2 DC 2.4GHz||PCIe x16||X1550||RV500||4||550?||128 bit DDR2/800?||1411||1411|
|Athlon II DC 3.0GHz||RS880/HD 4250||T'scale 1||40||500||Hyper & sideport||117|
|Core2 DC 2.4GHz||PCIe x16||X300SE||RV370||4||325?||64 bit DDR/400?||841,2|
GCN: Graphics Core Next
Memory speeds given in MT/s. Memory clock speed is one half this (one quarter for GDDR5).
1 does not support GL version 3.0 and unable to run the Terrain benchmark from this suite. Score is average of those it could run, which will flatter the result as the Terrain benchmark is generally the slowest.
2 failed to complete four other benchmarks correctly, substituting a dummy shader, and failed to run the Jellyfish correctly. Again, this flatters the results as the dummy shader is less work than a proper shader.
The performance of the RS880 may depend on the exact memory configuration (no sideport, exclusively sideport, sideport and hypermemory interleaved in different ways). The precise configuration of the two machines above is not known.
The benchmark does seem to be testing things which are entirely offloaded to the graphics card, in that very significant changes in CPU power have no impact.
The benchmark seems to be heavily influenced by GPU memory speed, in that the HD 5670 would be expected to be about 20% faster than the HD 5570 if the constraint was GPU processing power. It is over 2.7 times faster, presumably reflecting a memory subsystem four times as fast. Similarly the only difference between the R5 230 and the HD 6350 is that the memory is 20% faster on the former, leading to a score over 12% higher. Conversely the HD6670 has much better GPU performance than the HD5670 (20% more cores and 3.2% higher clock speed), yet the same memory, and scores just 2.2% better. One should be careful when purchasing cards: I purchased the HD 5570 believing it to have DDR3/1333 memory, which would probably have increased its score by about a hundred FPS if it were true.
The GCN-based card seems to be able to make much better use of the available memory bandwidth.
The Terascale and GCN-based cards switch between different power states, changing GPU and memory speed, and GPU voltage. The Terascale-based cards seem incapable of transitioning from their high-power state whilst a 2560x1440 monitor is active, save for the XFX HD5670 (the other cards were mostly Sapphire).
Upgrading from Mesa 11.2.0 to 12.0.6 made no significant difference to the above scores. The Haswell with the HD 5450 achieved an identical score, for instance.
The main focus of the computers in TCM is not games-playing. The embedded RS880 is a little weak, and those that failed some aspects of the test are far from ideal, but there is little pressure to improve these frame-rates. The HD 5670 is in a "public" (to TCM) computer room, so that those needing better performance have access to it.
The above Radeon cards all include some version of AMD's "Unified Video Decoder" (UVD). This may sit on the same die as the GPU, but it is separately clocked, and is mostly independent in generation from the rest of the GPU. Firefox and Chromium are notorious for not using it, but mplayer and VLC can. UVD 2 can decode two H264 1080p streams simultaneously, and is found on the HD4000 series and later. Only very recent cards (and none of the above) can decode H264 at 4K, H265 or VP9.
The line in
uvd vclk: 0 dclk: 0
refers to the current clock rates of the UVD. Here, quiescent. The program vdpauinfo will describe the capabilities of the UVD.