Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43

Thread: Catalyst 10.1 Still Trash In Heaven, But Good News

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,646

    Default Catalyst 10.1 Still Trash In Heaven, But Good News

    Phoronix: Catalyst 10.1 Still Trash In Heaven, But Good News

    We have just received official word from Unigine that they still are not ready to release their OpenGL Linux version of their Unigine Heaven benchmark. "Unfortunately we were asked by a hardware vendor not to release current version :(," said Denis Shergin, the Unigine Corp CEO...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=Nzk2MA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    101

    Default

    I would really appreciate it if AMD would do one of the following:
    1. Get their act together with fglrx
    2. Abandon fglrx and throw their full weight behind xf86-video-radeon

    While I appreciate AMD's support for free drivers, the fact of the matter is that the free drivers do not support things like OpenGL 3. It's annoying that I have to choose between a free driver that doesn't support the technologies I want and a non-free driver that *poorly* supports the technologies I want. Oh, and decent 2D acceleration in fglrx would be nice.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    I would really appreciate it if AMD would do one of the following:
    1) Either get OpenGL 3.x support with their next release, or;
    2) Shut up and just tell the Unigene folks to not wait for them to come with a driver that does OpenGL 3.x instead.

    BTW Fglrx should be called Fgl IMO, because it's geared for workstations and AMD just so happens to allow it to work on Radeon cards.

    The FLOSS drivers (be greatful they release docs and lend paid-for programmers) are geared for regular consumer computers with Radeon cards.

    "ATI sucks! Put some weight behind the linux drivers"
    *ATI does this*
    "AMD sucks because the driver doesn't work (yet)! Please release the specs so we can make our own"
    *AMD does this*
    Some random dude: "I would realy appreciate it if..."
    ME: "Stop whining"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    I would really appreciate it if AMD would do one of the following:
    1) Either get OpenGL 3.x support with their next release, or;
    2) Shut up and just tell the Unigene folks to not wait for them to come with a driver that does OpenGL 3.x instead.
    I don't think this is an OpenGL 3.x issue, it's about retrofitting the newest tesselation hardware support (which is *not* part of any OpenGL spec today) into an existing OpenGL 3.2 driver via extensions.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    I don't think this is an OpenGL 3.x issue, it's about retrofitting the newest tesselation hardware support (which is *not* part of any OpenGL spec today) into an existing OpenGL 3.2 driver via extensions.
    I've actually read something similar to this in the past. I've heard certain ATI issues with wine or xorg stemming from Nvidia actually providing more functionality than required by spec. This situation has come up dozens of times. Can you comment on it?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Sixpack View Post
    I've actually read something similar to this in the past. I've heard certain ATI issues with wine or xorg stemming from Nvidia actually providing more functionality than required by spec. This situation has come up dozens of times. Can you comment on it?
    OpenGL has a long history of vendor extensions getting added, as that was part of the design to allow hardware makers to differentiate their cards. NVidia's are typically used more than others simply because for a long time they were the only real option for high quality 3D graphics on linux. Now that alternative drivers are catching up, it's less likely to be an ongoing problem because new software will take other hardware into account from the beginning. Hopefully, anyway. Also, part of the point of the newer OpenGL 3 versions is to standardize some of the extensions both companies were supporting to help reduce the problem.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Sixpack View Post
    I've actually read something similar to this in the past. I've heard certain ATI issues with wine or xorg stemming from Nvidia actually providing more functionality than required by spec. This situation has come up dozens of times. Can you comment on it?
    It depends largely on what GPU the game was mainly developed up on. The 3D API are pretty loose in a lot of corner cases. That's why it's important to be first with new DX/GL HW since more game vendors will tend to use your hardware and expect your driver's behavior in those gray areas.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    80

    Default

    OGL 2.1 is more than enough. All I need is a decent performance for Team Fortress 2 through wine and free drivers are getting close.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    784

    Default

    2. Abandon fglrx and throw their full weight behind xf86-video-radeon
    As far as you're concerned, they do. fglrx is mostly maintained for the workstation customers (and has to be maintained for them), but AMD isn't throwing lots of man-power at it to quickly implement consumer-features like video acceleration or shiny, but useless heaven demos.

    Instead, they're developing the OS drivers. They already work very well in a lot of use cases, as far as we can see features are prioritized by end-user needs and the drivers are constantly improving.

    If you're saying that the OS drivers don't mature fast enough then that's probably a valid criticism, but it's debatable if development could be sped up by just transfering all fglrx developers to a codebase they don't even know. (besides, if you hate fglrx so much, would you really want those developers to work on the OS drivers? )

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rohcQaH View Post
    As far as you're concerned, they do. fglrx is mostly maintained for the workstation customers (and has to be maintained for them), but AMD isn't throwing lots of man-power at it to quickly implement consumer-features like video acceleration or shiny, but useless heaven demos.
    Uh... The first might be useless for Workstation work, but don't kid yourself about the second not being very, very useful.

Posting Permissions

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