Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 46 of 46

Thread: AMD Publishes Evergreen Shader Documents

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default settings again the law.....

    "not all possible settings for all fields are legal. This document specifies the valid combinations."

    i wana set settings again the law LOL

    i think.... in Germany this not legal stuff is not realy again the law...

    "Related Documents
    Microsoft DirectX Reference Website, at
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/archive/de...archive/en-us/
    directx9_c_Summer_04/directx/graphics/reference/reference.asp"

    need microsoft for an opensource openGL driver?.-......

    what da fu.k...
    Last edited by Qaridarium; 12-24-2009 at 04:30 AM.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,514

    Default

    Sorry, perhaps I missed something. Where in the document does it say "this document is only to be used for implementing opensource OpenGL drivers" ? The shader core supports DirectX, OpenGL, DirectCompute and OpenCL, and this document will be used as a reference for compute developers as well as graphics developers. The ISA docs are actually written and published by the Stream Computing team inside AMD, and our group writes the graphics-specific documentation.

    "are legal" in this context means "are valid", ie "will work". The other settings won't work in Germany either

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Russe, Bulgaria
    Posts
    526

    Default

    Bridgman I just want to wish you, and all AMD FOSS team Merry Christmas and to continue excite us, Linux users with the wonderfull work you are doing in the next year. Cheers

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Sorry, perhaps I missed something. Where in the document does it say "this document is only to be used for implementing opensource OpenGL drivers" ? The shader core supports DirectX, OpenGL, DirectCompute and OpenCL, and this document will be used as a reference for compute developers as well as graphics developers. The ISA docs are actually written and published by the Stream Computing team inside AMD, and our group writes the graphics-specific documentation.

    "are legal" in this context means "are valid", ie "will work". The other settings won't work in Germany either
    ok thank you... Galium3D-directx-stage *G*

    valid legal will work...... ok....

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sturmflut View Post
    erm Larabee has been cancelled some time ago? And about the quality of Intel drivers, have a look at the GMA500. The upcoming Atom N450 "Pine Trail" also comes with a GMA500 derivate, so this silliness isn't going to stop.

    In two years time ATI will probably be the only manufacturer left who's able to deliver high-performance graphics with free drivers. I am definitely supporting them and not Intel.
    WTF are you smoking? They can't even do that with their own proprietary drivers!

    The only half-way decent X drivers that I've ever had were the nVidia proprietary ones, and more to the point th eonly useful GPU drivers I've ever had were nVidia drivers on ANY OS...

    Oh, and let's not even talk about their weird OEM arrangements under windoze where they can't publish generic drivers... but then again nVidia and Intel don't compete against their own OEMs...

    ATI is a joke, and their spec release is a soporific for linux users who are not institutional users, nothing more. Although I will say that ATI's best hope of survival is to provide OSS drivers since they're dropping arch support like flies...
    Last edited by cutterjohn; 12-25-2009 at 11:58 PM.
    MSI GT725-074US:
    Intel Core 2 Duo P8600, 4GB DDR2-800, 320GB 7200RPM WDC WD3200BEKT-22F3T0, ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4850 512MB GDDR3, 8x Super multi DVD+/-RW, 1680x1050 (17"), 9 cell battery

    Ubuntu 8.10 x86-64 (current updates) catalyst 9.3
    Windows Vista Home Premium 32b SP1 (current update) still on shipped catalyst(8.12 I think, MSI packed -- lazy)

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cutterjohn View Post
    WTF are you smoking? They can't even do that with their own proprietary drivers!

    The only half-way decent X drivers that I've ever had were the nVidia proprietary ones, and more to the point th eonly useful GPU drivers I've ever had were nVidia drivers on ANY OS...

    Oh, and let's not even talk about their weird OEM arrangements under windoze where they can't publish generic drivers... but then again nVidia and Intel don't compete against their own OEMs...

    ATI is a joke, and their spec release is a soporific for linux users who are not institutional users, nothing more. Although I will say that ATI's best hope of survival is to provide OSS drivers since they're dropping arch support like flies...
    You are completely right, no one other than nVidia can make usable graphics cards or drivers. What can I be thinking being satisfied with the ability of the Intel card in my laptop to display Firefox, Pidgin, and Skype?! I have been so misguided! </sarcasm>

    At least 90% of the world doesn't care about openGL, FPS, or any of that stuff, what they care about is cheap flights and package holidays, their daily viagra bidding wars, and the ability to edit wikipedia to prove their world view. For those, even the nv drivers are adequate. So describing nVidia as the only company producing usable GPUs + drivers is, frankly, comical. Intel are the biggest selling graphics vendor for a reason: they are dreadfully boring graphics that just work fine for everything but the gamer/enthusiast market.

    On the subject of ATIs FOSS drivers... IIRC, bridgman has said they are surprised at some of the performance they are already seeing from those drivers. To describe them as a sop is, again, laughable, as where they work they are, for the average user, far superior to nVidias offering, because, you know, they are just shipped by every distro with no legal issues.

    I am, currently, still holding off on embracing ATI drivers for a while longer, because I want to give them a bit more time to mature, and also because I'm not shopping for a new laptop or desktop. I think we still need to give the ATI FOSS drivers time, they have come a long way in a short time, and the graphics stack is changing around them...

    Maybe in another year it will be "Why did we ever doubt nVidia?", it could also be "There is only one high performance graphics option on Linux, and it's ATI". It really depends on performance of the FOSS drivers, and how close they an get to fglrx on the FireGL cards. As they say "We live in interesting times".

Posting Permissions

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