Crap! My socks don't match after all. Damn you AMD!
Hmm, my maximum and resizing windows works very well without compositing. With compositing my resizing is sloow. But hey. Couldn't it just be a bug in the compositing? Without its very fast on my machine.
HD3650 and kde 4.2 on kubuntu.
i told you!!!
Originally Posted by melcar
It *is* a basic feature. Compositing is now standard in most OSes. OS X, Windows and Linux. If you still like GUIs that look like those from years ago, OK. But today, Vista Aero, OS X Aqua and Linux Desktop Effects is something people take for granted when buying a new graphics card. I didn't pay 300 bucks to get a graphics card that's slow as molasses in Linux with compositing while it's fast as hell in Vista.
It's hard to tell whether you're being sarcastic or not. Maybe it's just because I've got a headache. But I put it to you that 2D acceleration IS a basic feature. I'd then take issue with the rest of your points. The reasoning is simple ... ATI developed this driver, justified by the claim that they could do better then the OS crowd. The OS crowd is addressing all the issues you are claiming are not required. I therefore expect ATI's driver to exceed what the OS crowd is doing. Otherwise there is a problem with the original justification for the driver.
Originally Posted by yotambien
radeonhd supports EXA.. much faster in KDE4,..
Originally Posted by RealNC
the FGLRX can only XAA+someAMD-Improvmens..
at this time amd-fglx-devs first see how powerfull exa is becourse in some 2D tests the cheaper-younger-radeonhd win again fglrx by using EXA ...
wait 1-2monts then the fglrx has also EXA and will "flying"
I wish I was as optimistic. Maybe in my afterlife I'll see EXA in fglrx.
Originally Posted by Qaridarium
I ask again... Couldn't this be a composite bug? Why blame the driver? My nvidia card was also slow with composite on?
That EXA, UXA and whatever is the fastest should be standard in the driver - if you are forced to select it on your own to get best speed out of it then something is really wrong. From usage point it does not matter at all whats the name of the accelleration mode, it just has to be fast enough. I can only guess that the path fglrx took compared to nvidia was more depending on others - because they mainly only override one mesa lib. Nvidia is much more invasive but in most cases faster - not always however.
The fglrx driver was developed because we needed high performance OpenGL for commercial workstation customers, who generally do not run compositing or any other effects. That is still the primary justification for developing and maintaining the fglrx driver.
Originally Posted by dkasak
Since late 2007 we have also been trying to do more for consumer users, who *do* run compositors and expect snappy performance with a composited desktop. We are doing this in two ways -- by supporting open source driver development, and by adding consumer-oriented features and test coverage to the proprietary driver.
Yep... AFAIK we need EXA to get good performance under a compositor.
Originally Posted by Qaridarium
Last edited by bridgman; 02-01-2009 at 06:48 PM.
Tags for this Thread