turnip_faux123_v1.2.1-rc4 vs Turnip-Duo-v5.1
On Adreno (TM) 722 (Moorechip Retroid Pocket Duo, Nothing Phone (4a) Pro). The first driver named is compared against the second, which is the baseline.
StockTurnip-Duo-v5.1Mesa 27.0.0-devel (git-74920caaa0)
vsCustomturnip_faux123_v1.2.1-rc4Mesa 26.3.0-devel (git-dd45fd0baa)
Graphics system version (Vulkan)? to 1.4.359
Optional features (extensions)? to 168not checked on both
Features that pass their check (validated)not tested on bothTurnip-Duo-v5.1: no driver check yet
Speed test scenes (benchmark)0 faster 5 slower41% slower overall (geometric mean)
- compute_nbody19% slower
- hdr_2160p15% slower
- oit_linked_lists8% slower
- pipeline_barriers52% slower
- subpasses76% slower
Custom driver against stock, per scene. Bars to the right are faster, to the left slower.
Small areas of the picture differ from the stock driver in 1 scene (pipeline_barriers: 1 of 2304 cells). The picture matches overall, so this is a local rendering fault, not a different scene.
Turnip-Duo-v5.1 details turnip_faux123_v1.2.1-rc4 details
Feature checks that differ
Turnip-Duo-v5.1: no driver check (validation report) yet. Both drivers need a driver check before their feature checks can be compared.
Speed test scenes (benchmark)
| Scene | Turnip-Duo-v5.1 ms | turnip_faux123_v1.2.1-rc4 ms | Difference | Starts | GPU clock, MHz | Picture vs stock |
|---|
| compute_nbody | 9.56 typical 9.49 | 11.75 typical 11.77 | 19% slower | 3 of 3 vs 3 of 3 | 1150 vs 1150 | no large difference 0.0 no small difference worst 0.0 64x36 |
| hdr_2160p | 41.67 typical 41.66 | 49.09 typical 48.99 | 15% slower | 3 of 3 vs 3 of 3 | 1150 vs 1150 | no large difference 0.0 no small difference worst 1.0 64x36 |
| oit_linked_lists | 24.62 typical 24.57 | 26.69 typical 26.64 | 8% slower | 3 of 3 vs 3 of 3 | 1150 vs 1150 | no large difference 0.0 no small difference worst 0.0 64x36 |
| pipeline_barriers | 8.25 typical 8.26 | 17.29 typical 4.49 | 52% slower | 3 of 3 vs 3 of 3 | 1150 vs 1150 | no large difference 0.3 differs in 1 small area worst 5.0 64x36 |
| subpasses | 10.88 typical 10.88 | 46.05 typical 6.70 | 76% slower | 3 of 3 vs 3 of 3 | 1150 vs 1150 | not checked |
Time to draw one frame, per scene: the average (mean) frame time of the scene's best round, which is how many frames the driver delivered; lower is faster. "Typical" beside it is the median frame, which can sit well under the average when a driver's frames come in two speeds. A pair of reports made before per-round averages were recorded is compared on the median. A scene whose rounds disagree by more than 15% is left out. A scene marked "paced" was held at that mean frame time by the driver or the display queue, together with at least one other scene of the same run; its time says how the frames were spaced, not how fast the driver rendered, so it is not compared. A scene marked "too light" took under 8 ms at the standard size (1920 by 1080) on both drivers, where the screen's frame queue spaces the frames more than the chip does; its heavier run is the one compared: the row ending in _2160p is the scene drawn at 3840 by 2160, and compute_nbody_2x is that scene with twice the particles. "Faster" and "slower" describe turnip_faux123_v1.2.1-rc4 against Turnip-Duo-v5.1. "Picture vs stock" compares one fixed frame per scene as a coarse colour grid (0 is identical, above 40 is a different picture); it finds a scene that was not drawn. Where both reports carry the finer 64x36 grid, the second figure is how many of its 2,304 cells differ by more than 4 of 255, and "worst" is the largest single cell; this is what finds a small rendering error in a picture that otherwise matches. A row marked 16x9 comes from a report made before the finer grid existed. "Starts" is how many of a scene's process starts reached a measured round. A GPU clock marked "not comparable" differed by more than 5% of the device's maximum between the two timings.
Technical differences (Vulkan)
Both drivers need a driver check (validation report) before their technical details (Vulkan) can be compared.