Aticonfig needs to be used, since aticonfig had these options long before RandR 1.2.Originally Posted by nicweb
Junior Member
Does that mean randr 1.2 is supported or you have to use aticonfig to do that?
Phoronix
Aticonfig needs to be used, since aticonfig had these options long before RandR 1.2.
Phoronix Member
MIchael
Your testbase cards in the article are all PCIE cards..
Any chance you can lay your hands on AGP versions and an agp rig and kick some of these R5xx chips on AGP bus sets?
Currently my 9550 AGP (R3xx) kicks my X1650Pro AGP's (R5xx) ass sideways simply because fglrx_drm does not see the CARD as agp - it identifies the chipset as PCIE and never negotiates an AGP bus speed change. Doing anything that moves large amounts of data to the card (cough THINK about that statement) is sluggish in the extreme since the card is effectively in AGP mode0 (PCI standard speed)
What I'm reading here tho - I may just kick this driver in and give back a speed diff on the R3xx chips ... sounds like there might be a boost in there for me too....
Anyhow -- I"ll file version bump request @ gentoo and be waiting with baited breath for the release - bet yer ass I'm hauling this one down and setting up the ebuild for it in bugzilla.....
Phoronix
All of our AGP maintained systems end with the Radeon 9200 and 9250 chips. I'll see if I can find some more information though on any AGP changes for this release.
Junior Member
why
why?
i see reply to any question, but not for mine, Why?
Banned
I didn't ask about brand new (not even released) 2.6.23. To me, and most others (iirc) with x86-64, you can't use anything after (including) 2.6.20. That's terribly weak.
I don't know what you're trying to say regarding distros, but surely distros do configure and even patch the kernels differently, so you can't compare a certain vanilla kernel version with for instance "Fedora 8". But even if you could, do you think it's reasonable to refer to Fedora releases instead of kernel versions? Am I supposed to know whatever kernel Fedora X uses? To me, that's completely irrelevant. I will never care even remotely whatever kernel version Distro X, version Y uses. I simply don't care, and I shouldn't have too, since I'm not using that Distro damn it!
Tell that to everyone else in this thread then? I'm not the only one commenting without actually having the driver. Or perhaps you just thought I was too negative, and thereby I needed to be shut up?
I dunno.
We all speak out of experience with the so far drivers. Many of us see a pattern of not caring about really fixing the sucky drivers, but just fixing a bug a month, and this time, making the driver get a better score on FPS benchmarks.
That's a terrible loss of knowledge to me then, omfg! I've gotta go back to school and learn these important things, before I give another statement on a forum on the internet. The whole fucking world could collapse!
Anyway. I've got some answers now.
* No RandR 1.2, because ATI has invented their own proprietary tool before RandR 1.2 was invented, and because of that (very interesting reason) they won't use RandR 1.2 even though it's superior.
* 2.6.22 _should_ work. Well, 2.6.20 _should_ have worked (if you ask me) a long time ago. Will they have fixed support for 3 major kernel versions in a row? OMFG. Unbelievable. And highly unlikely :/
Well well, we'll see... Maybe the "open source" driver ATI will release in a couple of decades, and which will have become well tested and patched a few decades after that, will be interesting.
But ATI surely doesn't understand open source development. Release a 50 mb .tar.bz2 and say "we're now open source" is lunacy. Release _early_ and _often_. This way, important and highly skilled people (I'm thinking of X.org developers) can pin-point flaws and comment how things should be interfaced, to work better with X.org.
Otherwise, it might be "open" but it'll take a _long_ time until it'll "work like a charm" with "just about any linux kernel, distro, X.org-version", which the currently support drivers more or less do.
But ATI probably just want being tagged as "open source friendly" instead of really being interested in community development.
Again, I'm speaking ahead of time, but it doesn't take many brain cells to figure out what's going on here. I'm not saying I'm guaranteeing the new ATI driver to suck, I'm just saying it most likely will.
Phoronix Member
Okay Michael I realize that PCIE is the hot new standard -- but there are a ***heck*** of a lot of AGP bus based cards out in the wild still -- can we get tests on AGP bus cards -- The cards in this article are again all PCIE based..... or IGP, which if sanity in chipset design exists are PCIE internally.
Senior Member
Michael: Will CCC integrate well with the new "Graphical configuration tool for X" coming out in 2.20? It'd be nice to have say an extra tab called "CCC" - sort of like how the windows forcewares work.
Also, I noticed all the benchmarks use x server 1.3 - is there x.org 7.3 /x server 1.4 support in the new driver? I can't find anything on the thread that confirms or denies this.
Last edited by hmmm; 09-05-2007 at 07:01 AM.
Phoronix Member
heh -- I have the rig..... *grin* I even have disk space -- I can drop an FC install on an lv and give 'er a spin for ya....
Senior Member
Aaaaaaaggggghh!!!
That's another month wasted, then! I never thought that getting the graphics working (properly) on this laptop would be so frustrating!
Please ask them to test Lenovo T60p wide-screen laptops with V5250 chips and Core 2 Duos, so that the wait is ultimately worth it...
Posting Permissions