That would be... optimal. The great dream. Well, for some things it might be true but these are more CPUs, chipsets, storage chips and networking. GPUs seem to be slower cause a lot is done in software and there is more secrecy and I don't know how quickly these are developed in comparison to "plain" network chips.
Originally Posted by »John«
What AMD already did with Fusion?
And considering that they have to write that code anyway, why don't share at least the cost of maintenance when they get the chance? I don't see either side losing anything that way. Notice that none of the vendors providing free and open drivers for their hardware (and now I'm not talking only about GPUs) lost any of their competitive advantage, so worrying about that seems completely pointless.
Originally Posted by Adarion
John Bridgman keeps telling us that's because all the crap surrounding DRM and the goddamn software patents. Whenever the money is concerned, all logic and reason is quickly thrown out of the window. Or maybe it's just that another "logic" takes over - the kind of logic we shouldn't tolerate in any shape or form if we wish to call ourselves humane. That's one of the unfortunate consequences of twisted human nature and and therefore extremely hard to get right.
Originally Posted by Adarion
Well, not exactly - the timing is excellent and it's open, but it still lacks a good deal of bells and whistles. Don't get me wrong - I'm extremely grateful for what they've done so far and especially with Fusion, but it's still quite far from ideal. That said, I'm loyal to AMD and it's gonna stay that way as long as they keep showing so much promise.
Originally Posted by V!NCENT
Since the VX900 was released March 2010, it's not as long a wait as implied in the article (compared to AMD's docs).
I don't see why so many people are praising VIA.
They've done essentially zero work and they've now committed to doing absolutely zero work in the future. All they've done is punt out some documentation into the open for hardware that isn't much better than awful (running under their own drivers).
What is this actually going to mean for real people? It's going to be somewhere between months and years before this is turned into something useful, by which point the older C9 devices will have already started dying off (they already have here).
VIA should have done this two years ago. That would have deserved some praise. But the most this gets from me is a promise that I'll stop spitting when I hear their name.
Praising this particular move, not praising VIA.
Originally Posted by oliw
If Nvidia released docs, they would be praised too.
It's nice to release doc, however :
- it's a little late, as Chrome is out for years now
- Where can you buy Chrome gpu ? Here in France, no where. Perhaps elsewhere?
- Who will code that stuff, knowing that for AMD, there is major difficulties to get something completed for 2D, 3D and video (and AMD is far more present than VIA) ?
VIA is just giving away stuff that can't be sold (who got a VIA graphic card here?) and for which they don't want to invest anything.
Their Chrome9 is also so outdated that it's no secret fabrication process to be protected anymore, as Nvidia, AMD or Intel are far beyond them.
They don't sell discrete cards, but integrated chipsets, and people who end up with such a chipset (e.g. on a laptop) are quite screwed without drivers.
Also, there is already a more-or-less working Chrome driver, and it's been recently ported over to KMS+TTM. Of course it would be great if VIA funded developers (and it sucks that they don't), but the community devs do not have to start from zero. With this documentation, it should be far easier to fix the existing drivers and add missing functionality.
Much easier than with, say, nouveau.
Small correction on that. Now they actually sell an (one!) (overpriced) card. But it was really the first and only exemplar I've seen. 99,9% are laptop/mainboard included chips.
Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat
Tags for this Thread