Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: How well does HD4670 perform with open source drivers?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,653

    Default

    @RealNC

    why don't you just go back to the ati blob (or buy an nvidia +blob) and stop bitching??

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,434

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Taking 12 months (it's a bit more than that even) to complete the planned architectural changes *is* slow progress.
    Ahh, OK... sounds like we agree on the facts and just have different views of what constitutes a reasonable rate of progress.

    Carry on

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    @RealNC

    why don't you just go back to the ati blob (or buy an nvidia +blob) and stop bitching??
    I'll do whatever I feel like without asking for your permission, thank you very much. Funny though, how you support "open" and "free", but then tell others to shut up. Hey, I'm free to express myself too, you know. Fascist.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    I'll do whatever I feel like without asking for your permission, thank you very much. Funny though, how you support "open" and "free", but then tell others to shut up. Hey, I'm free to express myself too, you know. Fascist.

    fine with me

    i just proposed a solution to your problem

    keep bitchin

  5. #25

    Default

    How about this:

    Will radeon HD4670+open source drivers give me super stable 125fps in quakelive with "r_finish 1" at resolution 1920x1020/2=960x510 (cpu will be AMD Athlon II X2 255)? And if I will be patient enough then I will get pretty much same benefits one day as nvidia blob's vdpau?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    I'll do whatever I feel like without asking for your permission, thank you very much. Funny though, how you support "open" and "free", but then tell others to shut up. Hey, I'm free to express myself too, you know. Fascist.
    LOL right... i never argue in that way.

    but why is speed more importand than OGL3+s3tc or wine support in generall ?

    why is speed more importand than openCL or shader based video decoding?

    you need galium3D for that stuff means galium3D is more importand than speed.

    its much better to have an full featured driver than an fast but only openGL2.1 driver without any wine extansions and s3tc and openCL and without shader based video acceleration..

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    its much better to have an full featured driver than an fast but only openGL2.1 driver without any wine extansions and s3tc and openCL and without shader based video acceleration..
    I'm not sure I should get involved in this, but... that really depends on what you're doing with your computer.

    If you're trying to run an OpenGL 2.1 application that doesn't need Wine, s3tc, or OpenCL, and isn't playing videos, but it does render an awful lot of triangles with complicated shaders, then I'm willing to bet speed becomes a lot more important to you than any of those other things.

    In the general case, it's still a trade-on. I don't know of any interesting Free/Open apps that make use of OpenCL, but I have more than a few that drag ass on my desktop so badly that they are totally unusable as they run more like a slideshow than an interactive application. I'd much, much, MUCH rather have some speed updates before I get something like Wine compatibility (I have two other computers with Win7 on them, and XP in a VirtualBox VM on my main Linux desktop which can passthru DX/GL to the host OS, so Wine is completely and utterly useless to me). Likewise, video playback is optional for many users (I have two 42" TVs and hardware dedicated to playing both discs and streaming videos, so I don't need exceptional video playback on LInux). OpenGL 3/4 support would be nice, but not if the driver still can't run OpenGL 2.1 apps with a usable level of performance.

    Ideally of course there'd be enough manpower to work on performance _and_ features.

    Practically, there isn't, and I'm not putting any effort into the driver (nor are the vast majority of people in this thread), and I'm pretty sure no more than a precious few of the Mesa/kernel/driver/Gallium/X devs have ever received any money from me directly or via an employer I purchased products from, so I have zero rights to bitch about or demand any particular development priorities.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Taking 12 months (it's a bit more than that even) to complete the planned architectural changes *is* slow progress.
    (a) Going from zero to OpenGL 2.1 in 12 months isn't slow progress, it's amazing progress.

    (b) Fglrx/nvidia devs start working on driver support somewhere between 6-18 months before the hardware is released (Bridgman can provide a more accurate timeframe). Open-source development used to start *after* the hardware was released, hence the 12month gap. (This has changed now and future hardware will be brought up faster).

    (c) Fglrx has been rewritten once, just like the OSS drivers. Gathering from bits and pieces of information, the process took around 24-36 months - just like the OSS drivers! (Brigdman can again give a more exact timeline).

    (d) The OSS drivers have to develop and support many more devices than either fglrx or nvidia. Look at the big picture for a moment.

    Now, I know your attitude is "my 4870 runs better on fglrx" but this is short-sighted. You are losing the forest for the tree.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
    OpenGL 3/4 support would be nice, but not if the driver still can't run OpenGL 2.1 apps with a usable level of performance..
    for opensource software you can just drop the openGL2.1 renderer and port the engine to OGL3 and this ogl3 renderer is just faster means faster per watt usage for the same result.

    why is openGL2.1 so importand for opensource software ?

    opensource means any OS-Game can be portet to an modern OGL3 engine.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    for opensource software you can just drop the openGL2.1 renderer and port the engine to OGL3 and this ogl3 renderer is just faster means faster per watt usage for the same result.

    why is openGL2.1 so importand for opensource software ?

    opensource means any OS-Game can be portet to an modern OGL3 engine.
    Sounds great.

    When are you going to do it?

Posting Permissions

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