Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: AMD Radeon HD 4870 X2 On Linux

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Parish, NY
    Posts
    159

    Default

    wait, didn't AMD redo the codebase for fglrx not too long ago? Didn't Crossfire exist when they did that? Why are they molesting code to get it working now?

    I know I shouldn't expect much from fglrx, but this is something they should have seen coming.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    14

    Default

    I'm so disappointed. I'm ready to buy a 4870x2 for use in a dual boot situation - its the fastest, most powerful graphics card available at the moment and a good price/performance ratio to match. However, if I won't be able to utilize it in Linux at all, with proper 3D closed-source driver support, (even if it just runs 1 "core" that's enough for me), I don't know how I can buy it.

    I really wish AMD/ATI would get their drivers up to par - I don't want to buy an underpowered, overly expensive Nvidia card, and I don't want to support their very closed mindset, but I need a $500 graphics card to WORK.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffro-tull View Post
    wait, didn't AMD redo the codebase for fglrx not too long ago? Didn't Crossfire exist when they did that? Why are they molesting code to get it working now?

    I know I shouldn't expect much from fglrx, but this is something they should have seen coming.
    Well, actually they didn't rewrite their whole codebase. It was "just" the 3d part and one more low-level thing in order to improve performance and add AIGLX support. The part was (well, at least mostly) completely independant from any future Crossfire support, so it would have been the same mess anyways.
    By the way, the driver was buggy enough with 8.42, I don't even want to imagine how buggy it would've been if they even had Crossfire implemented at that time.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ellipsys View Post
    I'm so disappointed. I'm ready to buy a 4870x2 for use in a dual boot situation - its the fastest, most powerful graphics card available at the moment and a good price/performance ratio to match. However, if I won't be able to utilize it in Linux at all, with proper 3D closed-source driver support, (even if it just runs 1 "core" that's enough for me), I don't know how I can buy it.

    I really wish AMD/ATI would get their drivers up to par - I don't want to buy an underpowered, overly expensive Nvidia card, and I don't want to support their very closed mindset, but I need a $500 graphics card to WORK.
    Well, one important keypoint of this article was to explain that this card will probably be supported by the next Catalyst release. I guess, they either activate support with 8.8 or with 8.9, so you'll be able to enjoy Crossfire fun next month

    PS: In regards of using at least one core of the card, this is actually supported, at least after you add the ChipID in the Xorg.conf file.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Parish, NY
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Well, actually they didn't rewrite their whole codebase. It was "just" the 3d part and one more low-level thing in order to improve performance and add AIGLX support. The part was (well, at least mostly) completely independant from any future Crossfire support, so it would have been the same mess anyways.
    By the way, the driver was buggy enough with 8.42, I don't even want to imagine how buggy it would've been if they even had Crossfire implemented at that time.
    right, and fglrx is just awesome now....

    sarcasm aside, thanks for the info. I didn't know what they redid, just that they redid stuff.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4

    Default 4870x2, not quite yet

    Thus far, the card hits a BIOS post:

    Kernel Librray version:03.05.00.03
    StrongROM version:03.30 Build:_P
    ERROR
    System Configuration Data Read Error
    ERROR
    Warning: IRQ not configured- PCI in slot 04
    Bus:83, Device:00, Function:00
    ERROR
    Warning: IRQ not configured- PCI on Motherboard
    Bus:84, Device:04, Function:00
    ERROR
    Warning: IRQ not configured- PCI on Motherboard
    Bus:84, Device:08, Function:00
    ERROR

    but does later configure with radeonhd driver for minimal functionality. Unfortunately when run through aticonfig to get the fglrx driver (9.1 release, 2009/02/09) the screens are dark. No serious complaints in fglrx-install.log:

    >>>>>> more /usr/share/ati/fglrx-install.log
    [Message] Kernel Module : Trying to install a precompiled kernel module.
    [Message] Kernel Module : Precompiled kernel module version mismatched.
    [Message] Kernel Module : Found kernel module build environment, generating kernel modu
    le now.
    AMD kernel module generator version 2.1
    doing Makefile based build for kernel 2.6.x and higher
    rm -rf *.c *.h *.o *.ko *.GCC* .??* *.symvers
    make -C /lib/modules/2.6.27.7-9-default/build SUBDIRS=/lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x modules
    make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-2.6.27.7-9_thor'
    CC [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.o
    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c: In function ‘KCL_MEM_VM_GetRegionPhysAddrStr’:
    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:3260: warning: return makes pointer from integer without a cast
    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:3261: warning: return makes pointer from integer without a cast
    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:3262: warning: return makes pointer from integer without a cast
    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:3264: warning: return makes pointer from integer without a cast
    CC [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/kcl_acpi.o
    CC [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/kcl_agp.o
    CC [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/kcl_debug.o
    CC [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/kcl_ioctl.o
    CC [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/kcl_io.o
    CC [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/kcl_pci.o
    CC [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/kcl_str.o
    CC [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/kcl_wait.o
    LD [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/fglrx.o
    Building modules, stage 2.
    MODPOST 1 modules
    CC /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/fglrx.mod.o
    LD [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/fglrx.ko
    make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp'
    build succeeded with return value 0
    duplicating results into driver repository...
    done.

    Any ideas?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4

    Default Asus 4870x2 Linux

    As of today, Asus EAH4870x2 came alive for the first go around:

    host >>>>> uname -a
    Linux host 2.6.27.7-9-default #1 SMP Mon Feb 9 09:47:41 EST 2009 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
    kernel rebuilt with Opteron specific CPU support, not 386 generic

    Asus EAH4870x2 2G DDR5 >>>>>> glxgears
    40636 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8127.194 FPS
    41160 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8231.852 FPS
    38216 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7643.188 FPS
    42733 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8546.575 FPS
    42716 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8542.996 FPS
    42739 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8547.710 FPS
    42710 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8541.937 FPS
    42727 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8545.385 FPS
    42725 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8544.861 FPS
    42729 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8545.745 FPS
    42735 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8546.832 FPS
    42712 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8542.352 FPS
    42733 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8546.586 FPS
    42732 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8546.369 FPS
    42735 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8546.971 FPS
    42763 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8552.535 FPS


    Comparing to an older system:
    oldHost >>>> uname -a
    Linux oldHost 2.6.22.19-0.2-default #1 SMP 2008-12-18 10:17:03 +0100 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux

    ATI x1650 512M DDR2 >>>>>>> glxgears
    12641 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2528.175 FPS
    12865 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2572.728 FPS
    12598 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2518.102 FPS
    12605 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2520.413 FPS
    12324 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2464.615 FPS
    12398 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2479.584 FPS
    12750 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2549.988 FPS
    12329 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2465.761 FPS
    12157 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2431.369 FPS
    11895 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2378.310 FPS
    11740 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2347.959 FPS
    12091 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2417.982 FPS
    13293 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2658.571 FPS
    12682 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2536.338 FPS
    12643 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2528.545 FPS
    12897 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2579.356 FPS

    Installed with ATI 9.1 drivers, circa 2009/02/04 and configures to use the crossfire:

    aticonfig --list-adapters
    * 0. 84:00.0 ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2
    1. 85:00.0 ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2

    * - Default adapter
    --------------------

    aticonfig --adapter=0,1 --add-crossfire-chain
    CrossFire chain added
    Warning: X needs to be restarted before CrossFire changes take effect.
    --------------------
    aticonfig --list-crossfire-chains

    CrossFire chain for adapter 0, status: disabled
    0. 84:00.0 ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2
    1. 85:00.0 ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2
    ---------------------

    aticonfig --adapter=all --crossfire=on
    CrossFire chain(s) enabled
    Warning: X needs to be restarted before CrossFire changes take effect.
    ----------------------
    aticonfig --list-crossfire-chains

    CrossFire chain for adapter 0, status: enabled
    0. 84:00.0 ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2
    1. 85:00.0 ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2
    ---------------------

    I had to manually tweak the xorg.conf file (which is typical, I have always had to fix the aticonfig generated one), but this time it fired up.

    The BIOS post messages are still there, including the one about "Option ROM out of space".....


    I have not fully checked out this config, but wanted to let folks know it is possible. Hopefully more of us can get this vid working and check against more systems/software for performance.

    Regards

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Can you tell me what did you write and where? I want to fix my fps because there are too low..(6514 frames in 5.0 seconds).
    4870X2 user.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •