Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: opensource driver vs catalyst

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default opensource driver vs catalyst

    hi i'm now on the opensource driver side...

    the Opensource driver works perfekt!

    no install problems Catalyst sucks hart at this part.

    XV viedeo works gread viedeo quality is very good...

    the overall stability is powerfull super duber gread...very good..

    no problem....

    i hope the stable 9-4 catalyst can bring this Quality to linux!

    AMD sould port the catalyst diektly to 2.6.30 kernel becourse xorg 1,6,1 suck very hard on an non .30 kernel.. 29 lags like hell kpackgage is useless with .29 kernel +xorg1.61

    only .30 is a good kernel vor AMD carts!

    Host/Kernel/OS "ass" running Linux 2.6.30-020630rc2-generic i686 [ sidux 2008-04 Πόντος - kde-lite - (200812222321) ]
    CPU Info 4x AMD Engineering Sample 1024 KB cache flags( sse3 nx lm svm )clocked at [ 1000.000 MHz ]
    Videocard ATI RV710 [Radeon HD 4350] X.Org 1.6.1 [ 1920x1200@60.0hz ]
    Network cards 2x Broadcom NetXtreme BCM5754 Gigabit Ethernet PCI Express
    Processes 172 | Uptime 1:03 | Memory 386.5/3276.3MB | HDD ATA SAMSUNG SP2014N,ATA SAMSUNG HD103UJ Size 1200GB (91%used) | GLX Renderer Software Rasterizer | GLX Version Yes | Client Shell | Infobash v3.11

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,645

    Default

    Well, there was a patch for 2.6.28 which does the same, this is used by Ubuntu and as Kanotix uses the same kernel codebase just with minimal config changes it is in Kanotix too. 2.6.29 was too old, thats correct and I did not see any patch for it. But compiling ATI drm modules was always possible with any kernel externally.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    36

    Default

    I prefer the open source drivers mainly because I like to respect the free and open source community / lifestyle. The open source drivers also enable you to customize them, build upon them, and improve them, along with optimization that you just can't get with the closed source drivers. Also, you can't fix anything with FGLRX when there is a problem with something because it's closed. I strongly recommend using the open source drivers.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,645

    Default

    With my lowend ati 3450 i also only use oss drivers. I test fglrx when a new version comes out, but flgrx flickers (on tft) via analog on every randr command (which krandr also does on startup), shows extreme tearing with videos and lockups with certain 3d apps (like vdrift). That card is not made for games, so i do not worry much about using it for 2d only, but when you buy a gaming card then i guess you would like to play same games with linux too. And switching between 2 drivers for watching video or playing games is absolutely no fun.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut,USA
    Posts
    972

    Default

    My IBM Thinkpad T42 has the ATI 7500 Mobility Radeon and that isn't supported by fglrx...and yes the radeon driver works well on that. Google Earth is smooth on it

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neo_The_User View Post
    along with optimization that you just can't get with the closed source drivers
    Funny, I was under the impression that the closed drivers were far further optimized...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    83

    Default

    The closed source drivers have more features and faster 3D acceleration. The open source drivers have better 2D performance (in my experience) and is far more stable than the closed source drivers.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    36

    Default

    By optimization, I meant you have the option to optimize it, whereas FGLRX, you can't. You get what you get.

    Open source FTW!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neo_The_User View Post
    By optimization, I meant you have the option to optimize it
    Go ahead.

    whereas FGLRX, you can't. You get what you get.
    It's already "optimized", whatever that may mean.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    36

    Default

    OK For an example, I will say that again.

    FOR EXAMPLE with the open source drivers, you can use -march=i686 or whatever and set different CFLAGS etc. Yes, I know that doesn't make a huge difference. But hey, it makes my point.

    I enjoy doing the optimization myself (my personal opinion) which is exactly why I use LFS (linux from scratch) and Gentoo. See, if you buy windows, its all closed source. You can't really tweak much. Whenever something is open, it gives you more freedom (especially when GPL'ed unlike FGLRX) therefor, when you know what you are doing, you can completely change the driver around make it preform differently. agd5f would most likely agree with me on that point. With FGLRX, let's just pretend cache flushing doesn't work for example. Now see, since its closed source and you cannot modify the driver, you can't fix it. With the open source drivers, you can. To see proof of this fact, please dig through the commits for the open source drivers and you will see bug fixes, code clean up, etc. all done by an open source community. Unlike the few people who post in here, I actually appreciate agd5f's code, airlied's work, glisse's trees etc. and I don't say things like:

    "Funny, I was under the impression that the closed drivers were far further optimized... " because I'm actually greatful for all the work put into the open source drivers. The only thing I have been complaining about is glisse's KMS code having cache flushing issues.

    FGLRX is a disgrace to me (in my opinion and we all have a right to our own) and to me, I don't care how good FGLRX may be as terms of preformance or reliability. I rather not smack agd5f, glisse, airlied, and many others in the face by downloading FGLRX or even looking at it.

    xf86 driver developers, I don't know about you but I find it rather insulting when people don't use your guy's code. I know one thing for sure though. If I wrote a driver in direct competition with FGLRX, I sure as hell wouldn't want people using FGLRX.

    edit: I almost forgot to say this. You might be wondering why I would be insulted if I don't even develop for the open source drivers. It's because I'm putting myself in the xf86 driver developers's shoes and stating how I would feel if I were them. The reason I have such a biased opinion is for 2 reasons.

    1.) Less developers for xf86 drivers compared to FGLRX so you should cut them some slack
    2.) I am all about open source and free software because I believe (in my opinion and I will say this again, we all have a right to our own opinion) that people shouldn't work for a company such as AMD, to contribute to source code (specifically xf86 ati and radeonhd drivers.)

    Open source driver development team, Best of luck!
    Last edited by Neo_The_User; 06-06-2009 at 05:02 AM.

Posting Permissions

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