Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 64

Thread: AMD Admits It Has Linux Problems

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    37

    Default Where's the validation?

    I test Linux software for a living and I've had a AMD video card ( one way or another ) for the last 4 years. The biggest issue I've noticed with AMD video drivers is there doesn't seem to be any validation being done. Yes, I understand that testing Linux can be a complex daunting task because there are a lot of distributions but most of that software side of testing can be tested with a hyper-visor like KVM or VMWARE.

    I don't understand why don't script out testing? They obviously don't have a good validation process because half the time the driver doesn't install or uninstall properly. These are very basic tests that can be automated.

    I understand that AMD probably does have some sort of Linux validation but from what I can tell, it need a ton of improvement.

    just my two cents.

    BTW - AMD if you are reading this, I'd be happy to take up a contract if you need help.

    Thanks

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,054

    Default

    How does AMD work for video?
    Does hardware video acceleration work?

    I want to watch HD porno. If AMD isn't porno-compatible, I'm not buying.


    Quote Originally Posted by del_diablo View Post
    The isssue is not even that bad. Its just that the most bleeding edge AMD supports is whatever the latest Ubuntu is. Which is annoying for us who wants to have something a bit newer.
    Actually, I've heard that Ubuntu wanted to use the latest X.org server but chose to hold back, because of AMD not having a driver out yet.
    As a Nvidia user, this pisses me off. AMD's behavior is hurting me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gusar View Post
    Where you been, bro? Nvidia 302.11 beta driver has xrandr support.
    Great!
    Now if could only support kernel mode setting too...

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    446

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    I want to watch HD porno. If AMD isn't porno-compatible, I'm not buying.
    LOL

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Actually, I've heard that Ubuntu wanted to use the latest X.org server but chose to hold back, because of AMD not having a driver out yet.
    As a Nvidia user, this pisses me off. AMD's behavior is hurting me.
    Well, you could always not use Ubuntu. This is the reason Arch doesn't package Catalyst. Because contrary to Ubuntu, Arch does not want to hold back X because of a proprietary driver.

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Now if could only support kernel mode setting too...
    Err, we already had this discussion. Nvidia *does* have kernel modesetting. What they don't have is a fbcon driver that would work on top of it. You need to differentiate between the concept and a specific implementation. KMS is one implementation of doing modesetting in the kernel, used by the open drivers. Nvidia has their own.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Don't think you will in time... big problem here is that non-developers set unrealistically high expectations (basically claiming that the open source drivers would almost immediately outperform the proprietary drivers) and now that original delusion has been replaced with an equally wrong "open source drivers are going to be slow forever" delusion.

    In practice there has been steady progress over the last few years (look at r5xx as an example) and all indications are that performance will continue to improve on the newer GPUs.
    I completely agree about the unrealistically high expectations from non-developers.

    Another aspect is when said non-developers compare vendors on things such as time between hardware release and usable drivers. Intel, for instance had trouble with the Sandy Bridge launch, but had Ivy Bridge support in good shape before the hardware was on the shelves. They've now got 90-something percent of piglit passing on Haswell, which isn't slated for release until this time next year.

    This is undoubtedly related to the number of developers working on the drivers. AMD's market cap is ~1/29th of Intel's, and while I don't think AMD's development team is proportionally smaller, it certainly would benefit from a lot more man-power.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    One more time... "getting rid of the fglrx driver" doesn't provide enough resources to do the same with the radeon driver.

    The whole raison d'etre for a proprietary driver is to allow the sharing of code and developer effort across the entire PC market (ie across multiple OSes). The fglrx driver has good 3D performance because it shares most of the OpenGL stack (and the associated development funding) with other OSes and therefore has access to a much larger dev team. The development work would still need to happen for the other OSes even if fglrx wasn't benefitting from it.
    Really who cares? this is only PR-FUD its just bullshit the Linux users are to smart for this kind of shit.

    Getting rid of the FGLRX would double the open-source team and this is the only point what matters!

    i tried to use the catalyst for years on Linux and in all years it was just "PAIN"

    what is better a PAIN Free solution or a "Fast" Solution ? LOL Trololololol only a FOOL prever the PAIN for speed LOL!

  6. #46

    Default

    In particular, AMD concedes it has the most problems with OpenCL support on Linux. They attribute their Linux problems to the fact that there's many Linux distributions out there rather than just a single platform like Microsoft Windows.
    Stop kidding. You just support few distributions which aren't so different. If you were focus just on Ubuntu I bet it will be the same, because of stupid policy and lack of manpower.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    418

    Default

    I just don't understand why they keep saying 'windows easy to support, linux hard'. And ontop of that mac osx is 'just as easy as windows' well it isn't often said, but ment.

    This, imo is bullcrap. First off, they can make linux support almost as easy. Pick a main stream desktop 'joe user' distro and work for that, keeping in mind (and getting dev input) to not do really weird distro specific shit. I think they mostly do that already, by using Ubuntu (since those get pre-release drivers). It should foremost work there. That's their base. True, the ideal base would be some LSB/linux from scratch something ueber basic. Hell Gentoo would be a really nice base, but best pick something that's extremly mainstream.

    Linux being linux, should let distro maintainers sort the rest. Yes a burden, but not impossible.


    So why would windows or mac osx be any easier to support to begin with? Granted, api's change much less often and abi's are more stable. But you cannot fool me, and tell me that Mac OSX 10.5.* 10.6.* 10.7.* 10.8.* all can use the exact same files and it miraculously just works. And windows? Come on, it's even worse. Let's forget 9x and 2k (even though 2k should be valid still as it's not that much different from XP). WinXP, WinXP SP1, WinXP SP2, WinXP SP3, WinXP SP3..., Win vista SP..., and The same continues for 7 and later 8. Also here, I'm sure you can't just pop 1 driver into all those architectures and it 'just works'. Probably easier, probably less of an issue, especially when you say 'only works on 7' but even so it's still work and effort be put in.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Old Europe
    Posts
    916

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oliver View Post
    And ontop of that mac osx is 'just as easy as windows' well it isn't often said, but ment.
    Serious question: Who is developing the GPU drivers for Mac OS?

    Isn't it Apple themselves?

    http://www.macdirectory.com/componen...job_id,200635/

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    Getting rid of the FGLRX would double the open-source team and this is the only point what matters!
    How would it double the open source team? I'm quite sure that the FGLRX people are restricted due to proprietary bits, etc.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropy View Post
    Serious question: Who is developing the GPU drivers for Mac OS?

    Isn't it Apple themselves?

    http://www.macdirectory.com/componen...job_id,200635/
    I seriously doubt they do all the development.

    The Graphics team is responsible for shaping the Mac OS device drivers, and working with developers, internal partners, and vendors to define the GPU solutions
    .

    I belive that the vendors to work with, are nvidia, intel and amd. Do you really think they can do all that development work to support all these options? Also, amd has released mac hardware in the past, that didn't come with a mac per default, 'aftermarket' card. No, I don't think so.

    Apple surely works extremely close with amd/nvidia/intel on their graphics bits but I do not believe they do all their driver development in-house based on 'specs' only.

Posting Permissions

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