Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 64

Thread: AMD Admits It Has Linux Problems

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    208

    Default

    AMD's linux problem is multiple. Their screwing around with side stepping cpu architectures has killed them. Today I can build a dual socketed intel server that will beat out AMD's quad socket offerings, both on cpu throughput and power use. It's just not pretty.

    The only thing it seems they have left today is the good gpu performance on their brazos and llano laptop offerings. Everything else seems to be a joke, the result being intel jacking up their prices.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    I would like they to more quickly come out with a new release to support the new ABI of X.org whenever there is a new X.org release.
    This is what x.org releases mean: http://www.x.org/wiki/Releases
    As you can see, all existing x.org releases are supported, including the latest that was released in 2010. Of course, nobody wants support for x.org releases, but for x.org server releases. So just say so when complaining, because it looks like the problem is that whoever is managing the Linux version of Catalyst is not aware of the existence (or at least of the importance) of individual xserver releases. Don't believe this is true? Look at the description of their drivers here: http://support.amd.com/us/gpudownloa...eon_linux.aspx
    Description:
    Automated installer and Display Drivers for X.Org 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, or 7.6

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    396

    Default

    Can someone explain why many distros is a problem for AMD and what distros can do to help ?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disi View Post
    And I don't believe they pay more for the graphic cards than normal people?
    See, that's where you would be wrong: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814195113

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    830

    Default

    so and you think that workstation users (companys/universitys) would not be happe to have lets say as example opencl or other stuff in the free driver? or just a catalyst-like driver but stable und portable as the opensource driver? They like a driver that makes your computer hang more often than the free driver and other stuff?

    Dont belive that, and even there is the question why not buy a nvidia card for your workstation? because of the supper catalyst driver? ^^ rofl.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Acknowledging the problem is the first step towards solving it.
    This is very welcomed.
    BUT... this is also have been acknowledged per se long ago. I.e. nothing new.


    However, the second step - filtering out where problem lies and searching efficient algorithms to solve it, is something AMD has never done yet. Please start with it, please.


    Or in my own terms (based upon conversation with Bridgeman): discussion brings you nowhere, but to tons of flood.

    I'm entering sleep mode, till Michael pushes article keyworded "AMD wants to do this and this to improve".

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCycoONE View Post
    See, that's where you would be wrong: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814195113
    Yeah, they sold 2 of it total.

    Compare ~5 Mio amd linux users x 10$ of normal chips.
    Also, at least 1/2 of nvidia proprietary people will shift towards the open gfx driver that actually does something good, do not forget that factor.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,048

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adarion View Post
    OpenCL? Omg, always this OpenCL. It's a nice thing to have but there are more important things right now like proper video acceleration and power management on par with fglrx for all chips as well as recent chip support. Okay, they're talking about fglrx but this beast needs support for recent kernel x.org in time, better 2d and better compatibility (e.g. WM compositors)
    Agree.
    Who gives a shit about OpenGL, just make video acceleration and porno work!

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by makoto42 View Post
    What about XvBA, that can't seem to do profile 5.1? Or do they think that OpenCL ffmpeg work will naturally obviate the utility of XvBA? If that worked (and better yet, if it could be used to process 10 bit per channel video on current hardware), I may be placated.
    Its an Hardware limitation. And By the Way i have never seen video material that need an higher Profile level as 4.2 ( Except the 4k stuff.)
    Most times you get the L5+ stuff from some morons that think an higher number is better. Its very annoying to reencode this material for my dlna Server

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,048

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nille View Post
    Most times you get the L5+ stuff from some morons that think an higher number is better. Its very annoying to reencode this material for my dlna Server
    People who transcode will burn in hell.
    Encoding should only be done from a lossless source, never from a lossy source.

Posting Permissions

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