Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 123

Thread: FGLRX Catalyst and Resizing with Desktop Effects

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Merida
    Posts
    1,099

    Default

    Crap! My socks don't match after all. Damn you AMD!

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    515

    Default

    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.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Have a good day.
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by melcar View Post
    crap! My socks don't match after all. Damn you amd!
    i told you!!!

    :-)

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,773

    Default

    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.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yotambien View Post
    Only that is not a basic feature, regardless of what the crowd may yell.
    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.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    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.
    radeonhd supports EXA.. much faster in KDE4,..
    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"

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    radeonhd supports EXA.. much faster in KDE4,..
    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.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    515

    Default

    I ask again... Couldn't this be a composite bug? Why blame the driver? My nvidia card was also slow with composite on?

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,607

    Default

    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.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dkasak View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    radeonhd supports EXA.. much faster in KDE4,..
    the FGLRX can only XAA+someAMD-Improvmens.."
    Yep... AFAIK we need EXA to get good performance under a compositor.
    Last edited by bridgman; 02-01-2009 at 06:48 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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