How Old ATI GPUs Can Be Faster On Open Drivers
Phoronix: How Old ATI GPUs Can Be Faster On Open Drivers
A few days ago when publishing the results of benchmarking a lot of graphics cards on their Gallium3D drivers (about a dozen graphics cards) this left a number of people surprised. A number of these results from the open-source Gallium3D drivers illustrated the older graphics processors as being much faster than the newer hardware, even though the newer hardware is far superior to the vintage products. This shouldn't have been a surprise if you stay up-to-date with the Linux graphics news on Phoronix, but it comes down to features found in the older Gallium3D drivers not yet implemented in the newer open-source drivers...
Why are the open source drivers unable to implement S3TC? As long as its use is restricted to hardware where the manufacturer paid the licensing fees, there should not be a problem.
It's the only thing I wait for to switch on r600g open drivers (for EVE-Online on Wine)
Additionally to the question of Shining Arcade:
Will AMD ever bind selling of new cards to opensource driver development?
This seems as extremely critical to me now, as kernel devs claim themself that hardware gets more complex with each release.
The opensource driver development vector should at least keep the pace with new hardware development vector.
Otherwise all opensource community ends in situation of perfect opensource driver for the card that is not sold, or even not compatible with modern hardware anymore.
There is no point in such software and the whole effort can be considered as wasted then.
Crazycheese, same answer as the last few times you asked...
Originally Posted by crazycheese
If there was a reliable and reasonably accurate way to track opensource driver usage (one which was reasonably immune to being gamed or scripted) then I'm sure that information would get considered in our development plans at some point. I haven't heard of or seen any approaches which meet those criteria yet. Self-selecting mechanisms such as response forms aren't even close. Let's say we get 23,654 responses all saying "I only use open source drivers" - 100% of users, right ? Now, let's look at that in the context of say 100M units sold per year - now we're down to 0.025% market share, which means we have too many developers working on Linux already.
That said, our commitment is to provide documentation and/or sample code and developer support to let the driver dev community build good open source drivers without having to reverse-engineer the hardware, not to develop those drivers ourselves, and we have been doing that for a few years now, so I'm not sure why you feel it is so important for us to provide additional developers.
It seems to me that the first thing you are asking for is a wholesale change in strategy, maybe the "give up on the workstation market and focus our efforts on the consumer Linux client business so we can justify diverting more resources to open source drivers" approach ?
AMD miss one important point:
Originally Posted by bridgman
If the workstation customers only care about closed source drivers for me as a AMD card user is no single Point of argument why anyone should buy an amd card?
i read all over the forum there is no amd/ati card user with a point like "amd cloused source drivers beats nvidia one in all my stuff i do"
i only can read stuff like this: "i prefer amd because the catalyst works for me right now and the weakness of the catalyst is less important than having an NDA Free spec and a second fall-back opensource driver"
AMD think like a brain-death Zombie:
"99% catalyst users means we need to hire 99% devs for the catalyst"
because they don't get the point of the part of the catalyst users care about the not used opensource driver.
call it PR Public Relations but i don't believe you found any catalyst-Linux customer that don't care about the radeon.
in general "Public Relations" is very important and in the past AMD lose on that part of business.
Originally Posted by bridgman
IP adress and card serial number.
Did you even read Bridgman's response? You can do that, and the number of responses you get is going to be way, way, WAY under 1% of total sales. Which would then mean they'd end up cutting Linux developers. If you mean they should compare responses from Linux users to Windows users, that opens up the whole "gaming the system" argument.
Originally Posted by Thatguy
I vaguely remember one of the devs saying something about that. I think it was something like this: the hardware S3TC support doesn't necessarily work for all operations allowed by the spec (e.g. all combinations of texture formats and textures/pbuffers located in system vs. GPU memory), so S3TC support would require a separate software implementation as a fallback, and then Mesa is basically shipping its own implementation rather than just supporting the hardware implementation, which complicates things.
Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine
GPU openhardware or at least openspec
We need a GPU openhardware to evolve as fast and well as opensoftware does.
At least Open specifications.
The first company doing it will earn a lot of money, even if they also have propietary products.
Tags for this Thread