Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 66 of 66

Thread: 50% slower than AMD! Intel FAIL again with the HD4000 graphic hardware.

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by t.s. View Post
    'Cause you and others (the geeks, they says) can reuse your computer/computer component then you won't buy something new that can be acommodated by that [computer/ component].
    but tell me why is amd supporting opensource driver to make a very long support?

    if they really think this hurts them then they wouldn’t do that.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    I actually think what's going on is a mixup between "what we did to catch up" and "what we are doing now". I agree completely that this is not necessarily obvious since Alex did a lot of work helping the transition to KMS and that *did* involve working on older hardware, but if you think of KMS as the exception rather than the rule this will all make a lot more sense.
    I'm talking about that you develop older hardware support on opensource driver first and intel develops support for newer hardware first.

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    That only applied while we are catching up. We came fairly close to catching up in time for SI and would have if the delta between NI/SI had been comparable to the delta between previous generations, and expect to be substantially caught up by the next generation. Most of our focus now is on new hardware, although as we learn things we often go back and apply fixes to older hardware at the same time.
    Yes, this would be good as I still don't see reason to buy amd hardware. I do prioritize opensource much more, but it should *work*.

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    I don't understand #1 - are you just saying that work on the proprietary driver uses resources which could help the open source driver ? If so then I agree, but again please note that those resources would not be enough to let the open source driver meet the market needs which the proprietary driver satisfies.
    We are talking about different markets. My market segment is definitely not satisfied with results, going out buying 6950 and crossing fingers is definitely not an option. Going out and buying A4/6/8 and crossing fingers for it to handle power management, xrandr, video acceleration (that nice *vital* addition), and 3d acceleration is also not an option. Except one uses fglrx, which is still lower than nvidia, which both are in same league because they are proprietary. John, place yourself in position of a buyer.

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Re: #2, yes but the only way to prevent it would be to get rid of the proprietary driver so that there would be nothing to compare with.
    Rid of proprietary driver, support buyers of your cards to use opensource driver. Quite an easy job, which you are not interested in. You like it just as now, and I don't hence I buy elsewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    re: #3, yes but then we would need to walk away from a very important market which *nobody* supports with open drivers.
    Any workstation fglrx user here?

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    re: #4, maybe (although one could argue that it's optimization work rather than underlying architecture that makes the difference) but funding the implementation of complex architectures / optimizations requires sales from the entire PC market, not just the Linux portion -- being able to share code and investment across the entire market is the main reason that proprietary drivers even exist.
    You don't want, and later you pay 4 developers to create opensource driver. That is nearly completely cut from funding by selling "head of the fish".
    After several years you pay large group of developers to make windows phone driver which: *everyone* says is crap, has bad reputation at start (elop + nokia), has zero market and zero userbase.
    For this you use opensource driver. Brilliant. You probably would answer, that *after* you make the driver the phone will gain userbase and market. And linux won't?
    Is Linux some kind of operating system you guys have constantly bad feeling of - especially when you just hear the name, and mentioning "windows" works like audio amphetamine on you?

    The more you give the project, the better will it be, the better will it sell. Something you always and completely ignore.

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    re: #5, I don't agree with your conclusion. If you said something more like "we are not willing to walk away from the workstation market even if doing so would allow us to offer an attractive open source solution more quickly" then there might be some truth to that. However, you need to remember that it was *never* our plan to write the drivers exclusively ourselves. If you get a chance please re-read the comments we made back in 2007.
    Will do.

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Not different at all -- that's what we are doing as well and have been for a while, although note that the developers funded by embedded are working on the areas considered most important for the embedded market, which typically includes "recent" chips as well as "newest".
    Im only interested in Linux. I think google is big enough to pay you for android driver development.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    I'm talking about that you develop older hardware support on opensource driver first and intel develops support for newer hardware first.
    Sure, except we don't. We had to do that a few years ago, but not today.

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    We are talking about different markets. My market segment is definitely not satisfied with results, going out buying 6950 and crossing fingers is definitely not an option. Going out and buying A4/6/8 and crossing fingers for it to handle power management, xrandr, video acceleration (that nice *vital* addition), and 3d acceleration is also not an option.
    IIRC xrandr and 3d acceleration were supported on A4/6/8 at launch time. Video decode acceleration is a matter of ability to expose secrets, not manpower. Power management is the only one in your list where more manpower might help. The big challenge with Llano was figuring out the new display bits, specifically the translator chips that handled non-DP outputs.

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Rid of proprietary driver, support buyers of your cards to use opensource driver. Quite an easy job, which you are not interested in. You like it just as now, and I don't hence I buy elsewhere.
    In order to provide a competitive solution for workstation with the open driver we would probably need ~3x-5x as many developers as we have on fglrx today. I wouldn't call that "real easy".

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Any workstation fglrx user here?
    I wouldn't expect more than a few, but hey we can't have a different driver strategy for every web site

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    After several years you pay large group of developers to make windows phone driver which: *everyone* says is crap, has bad reputation at start (elop + nokia), has zero market and zero userbase.
    Large group ? I think the "group" was one experienced developer.

    Nothing to do with phone by the way - this was for embedded customers who wanted to use Windows Embedded Compact, in the same way that other embedded customers want to use Android. AFAIK Windows Phone 7 and Windows Embedded Compact 7 are different OSes, although they share some Win CE roots. They were rumored to have a common kernel but I don't think that's the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    The more you give the project, the better will it be, the better will it sell. Something you always and completely ignore.
    If the cost of "giving more" is a lot higher than the benefit from selling more, I wouldn't call that a win. This is the one place we never seem to be able to connect.

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Im only interested in Linux. I think google is big enough to pay you for android driver development.
    I don't think Google feels the same way as you
    Last edited by bridgman; 01-25-2012 at 10:05 AM.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    If the cost of "giving more" is a lot higher than the benefit from selling more, I wouldn't call that a win. This is the one place we never seem to be able to connect.
    This is just speculation because its a chicken vs egg problem you don't sell well because you don't invest money and because you don't invest money you don't sell well.

    Stupid argumentum ad circulum. (Self-fulfilling prophecy bullshit)

    But yes i know every stupid economic school teaching and university lecture teach this bullshit.

    but in fact its just a
    "Eristic Dialektic pe nefas"
    -->
    "Evil technique with unauthorized sugical and micromanipulative methods "

    This bullshit is know over 1000 of years and you are not the first one trying this crap.

    o man i read to much old scool "Arthur Schopenhauer - Eristische Dialektik" http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristische_Dialektik

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,574

    Default

    If the cost of doing what is being asked is higher than the money we would make from having 100% share of the affected Linux market then I would argue it's not speculation.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    If the cost of doing what is being asked is higher than the money we would make from having 100% share of the affected Linux market then I would argue it's not speculation.
    and you do it AGAIN! because your claimed fix numbers are NOT FIX! '

    "than the money we would make from having 100% share of the affected Linux market "

    what is 100% of the linux market in the future? this is just Speculation!

    this is just bullshit because of the "Grow" if you do have 40% grow every 5 month you have 100% market share after a longer time.

    and then the 100% of the linux market in the future is? the HOLE MARKET:

    and now you can say not YET but this is also wrong because its only not yet because you do not invest.

    ok and you will try it again. "normal people let you go way with this but i will not. "

Posting Permissions

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