Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 118

Thread: Does anyone know when OpenSource ATI GPUs power options are fixed?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    135

    Default

    For me, It looks like they doesn't do that already but complaining about Linux engineering benefit/budget bla bla. It's ironic that company like AMD talking about hiring "a half dozen" engineer at a year since there are much work are waiting...
    I wish they fix their linux drivers soon. If they don't, I (we) will fix it simply by choosing another brand on next GPU shopping.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Death Knight View Post
    For me, It looks like they doesn't do that already but complaining about Linux engineering benefit/budget bla bla. It's ironic that company like AMD talking about hiring "a half dozen" engineer at a year since there are much work are waiting...
    I wish they fix their linux drivers soon. If they don't, I (we) will fix it simply by choosing another brand on next GPU shopping.
    They are not interested in Linux. Thats the idea. They are paid not to. Imagine this: they are not interested in external monetary fund just for linux drivers. How *ucked up can this be, I don't know.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adarion View Post
    Yep, that is right but: what do you intend to buy then? None of the others is any better.
    Intel has better power management, also the cpu is faster. Even if the gpu sucks power management is more important in a laptop.
    ## VGA ##
    AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
    Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    I'd love to use the open source drivers and cannot because of missing power management, but I don't find fglrx to be that bad. My E-350 APU is running fglrx on Ubuntu 12.04 without any problems at all. Also I watch videos with XBMC-XvBA (UVD3).

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Death Knight View Post
    It's ironic that company like AMD talking about hiring "a half dozen" engineer at a year since there are much work are waiting...
    Sorry, when did this happen ? I'm pretty sure I see all the outgoing communication related to Linux and I've never seen anything like this said.

    We did hire two additional engineers to work on the open source drivers last year as you know.

    Bigger question, what happened to the whole "if only AMD would provide basic programming info the community would take care of writing open source drivers" idea ? That was what everyone was saying at the start of the project, not "let's blame AMD for not writing the whole open source driver themselves".

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Bigger question, what happened to the whole "if only AMD would provide basic programming info the community would take care of writing open source drivers" idea ?
    Eheh I do agree. By the way, why is the community more involved in the nvidia reverse engineering? That's quite strange indeed...
    ## VGA ##
    AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
    Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Imagine this: they are not interested in external monetary fund just for linux drivers. How *ucked up can this be, I don't know.
    What you mean is "they don't think that setting up the external monetary fund just for Linux drivers *themselves* is a good use of *their* time, since all of the suggestions so far end up assuming that *they* (AMD) will be the ones putting the money into it".

    If you have a suggestion for setting up an external fund that doesn't involve us turning our developers into fundraisers or redirecting our own funding that's fine, but I haven't heard anything like that yet.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    what happened to the whole "if only AMD would provide basic programming info the community would take care of writing open source drivers" idea ?
    Haha. Yeah, that used to be the party line. All talk, no substance.

    The question I have is, do the available docs allow the community to write better power management? And how close could the open driver get to catalyst in terms of power consumption?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Merida
    Posts
    1,102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darkbasic View Post
    Eheh I do agree. By the way, why is the community more involved in the nvidia reverse engineering? That's quite strange indeed...
    More nvidia hardware available inside the community?

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    ฿ 16LDJ6Hrd1oN3nCoFL7BypHSEYL84ca1JR
    Posts
    1,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darkbasic View Post
    Eheh I do agree. By the way, why is the community more involved in the nvidia reverse engineering? That's quite strange indeed...
    More of a challange? More fame?

    I find that strange too. But even pathscale did it. If I were a company who wants to do some open source GPGPU what would I take? The hardware from the company that provides no documentation and a vendor specific API or the hardware from the company that provides documentation, official support, even pays some people to develop the driver, and an open standard that is supported on most graphics hardware?
    ... And thus it got to be a fork of nouveau using cuda.

Posting Permissions

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