AMD Llano Die: 4 x86 Cores, 480 Stream Processors

[next9]

I don't know what to think about this. Unified processor with "ATI cores" on die seems to me like AMD shooting itself in leg on Linux playground. Everybody knows the status o Graphics in Linux. nVidia produce its binary blobs that works satisfactory, ATI produce binary blob, that is far worse and released some docs for others to write OSS driver from scratch. Only Intel supports OSS drivers directly.

Imagine the situation, AMD release this kind of CPU, but without own primary support for it GPU cores. They don't do this today, and they won't do this in future because of 3rd party IP jail. So linux user will buy half functional CPU, waiting long time for OSS driver to bring only a part of second half of functionality?

Very strange situation on Linux playground with future AMD CPUs...

[bridgman]

I don't know what to think about this. Unified processor with "ATI cores" on die seems to me like AMD shooting itself in leg on Linux playground. Everybody knows the status o Graphics in Linux. nVidia produce its binary blobs that works satisfactory, ATI produce binary blob, that is far worse and released some docs for others to write OSS driver from scratch. Only Intel supports OSS drivers directly.

next9, you know we have developers working full time on the open source drivers, right ? Having good out-of-box support for the Fusion parts was one of the reasons for supporting open source driver development in the first place.

[droidhacker]

This is no foot-shooting.
This is quite cool.

Out of box support up to R7xx series is now quite good. A little buggy, but there's still lots of time.

I see something on wikipedia about fusion CPU with RV710... As an RV710, that would be *already supported*. As in *same day open source*. And being meant for a 2011 release, there's plenty of time for improvements to the open source drivers... features, stability, etc., gallium anyone? Even R8xx should be supported stable in G3D by then... I hope.

[next9]

next9, you know we have developers working full time on the open source drivers, right ? Having good out-of-box support for the Fusion parts was one of the reasons for supporting open source driver development in the first place.

Ok. Lets specify that. You have binary Catalyst driver (fglrx). It has most of the features, and usually at launch. But, It is binary blob and it miss some important functionality.

On the other hand, you have OSS driver and we can call it second class. It is not prepared at the time of HW launch and now it is poor in functionality. And, in addition, some of the devs told, that in performance, it would be always behind the binary one.

So. What can I do? I hate ATI's binary driver no matter whether it is Windows or Linux version. I'm not satisfied with it. I can use OSS driver that lacks functionality, and always will be behind the binary one.

As far as I have discrete GPU, or GPU in chipset, I can use graphics I'm satisfied the most. But with GPU included in CPU, I do not have this hardware choice.

So. At the time of this new combined CPU will be launch... Do you think OSS driver will be at first class quality? Will be AMD CPU supported the same way that is supported today? AMD was always Linux friendly and well documented. But you can't go this way with ATI you bought. Always it will be some permited parts, that can't be documented because of IP of someone else. For Example, UVD? So this combined YPU will be not fully supported.

Thats my fear. I wiss I am wrong.

[bridgman]

If you just hate ATI you will still be able to buy an AMD processor with someone else's graphics. It's not like we are planning to stop making discrete CPUs.

I'm not claiming that open source drivers are a replacement for proprietary drivers; quite the opposite in fact. We believe that there is a need for both open source and proprietary drivers, depending on the market. I was simply responding to your comment that "only Intel supports OSS drivers directly", which was not correct.

[next9]

If you just hate ATI you will still be able to buy an AMD processor with someone else's graphics. It's not like we are planning to stop making discrete CPUs.

Great. It is good to read this.

I'm not claiming that open source drivers are a replacement for proprietary drivers; quite the opposite in fact. We believe that there is a need for both open source and proprietary drivers, depending on the market. I was simply responding to your comment that "only Intel supports OSS drivers directly", which was not correct.

Using the word "directly" I meant "primary" driver.

I can stand discrete graphics with ugly binary blob. I can switch GPUs, when the better OSS solution appear. Thats why I appreciate discrete CPU product line will continue.