Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 64

Thread: AMD Admits It Has Linux Problems

  1. #51
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    35

    Default

    " 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. "
    whaaat? repeated lie wince/winxp/win7/winserver x86/AMD64/EMT64/ARM (don't push on "official 'windows' supported m$ policy" there is mobile/server windows too)

    google typed "opencl linux example" - guess what - "NVIDIA OpenCL SDK Code Samples" examples, code snippets all nice , and deep sublink to http://developer.amd.com/zones/OpenC...s/default.aspx a lot of marketing pages...
    installed xorg on some pc yesterday with nvidia driver.. opnecl driver note ..

    They are late and not too active shame i really loved some amd code releases (like SSEX quickmath library)

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Old Europe
    Posts
    910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oliver View Post
    I seriously doubt they do all the development.

    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.
    My question has not been a rhetorical one.
    I simply don't know it.

    Let's assume they make use of the available OpenGL cores (from the windows driver implementations for instance)
    and just wrap around platform specific code - similar to what NVidia and AMD does for their Linux blobs.
    Then why is it that they still stick with OpenGL 3.2 in Lion?
    Yes, there might be reasons for that - other than writing large parts of it on their own - but it's strange, isn't it?

    Edit: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...item&px=OTI0OA ("Mac Graphics Drivers Are Still Troubled", March 25, 2011)

    Apple largely develops their own GPU drivers for Mac OS X in-house and last year they overhauled their OS X OpenGL stack for NVIDIA and AMD graphics processors. This was done as Valve Software was porting their Source Engine to Mac OS X and their current drivers on Mac OS X 10.6 at the time simply didn't cut it. The Snow Leopard Graphics Update improved the OpenGL performance, fixed various corruption issues, improved the GL Shading Language support, and fixed up or added support for various other OpenGL extensions. Like the Mesa / Gallium3D drivers, Mac OS X too is largely living in a OpenGL 2.1 world at this time.
    Last edited by entropy; 05-29-2012 at 06:31 PM.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Posts
    65

    Default

    it must have been eight or more years ago when a colleague said to me "if you buy anything other than an nvidia card, you've bought the wrong one".

    This was when I worked at a company where were could use our desktop computers for lan gaming at lunchtime and after work, and the very simple ATI graphics card in the machine which was fine for text editing was simply useless for things like quake and unreal. I took his advice and bought an Elsa Geforce200MX, and it worked without hassles, unlike any previous time I'd use ATI.

    I've never bought an ATI/AMD card since. When I bought this laptop, a key requirement was to have nvidia graphics and avoid ati. Sure, when running linux you have to taint your system with a binary blob, but it does work.

    Sorry, AMD/ATI, but now your CPUs can't compete against Intel's, and there's no way I'd buy your CPU/GPU package, you've become a footnote in my technical history book.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    south east
    Posts
    342

    Default Tearing?

    AMD Catalyst Control Center // Display Options // Tear Free // Enable Tear Free Desktop to reduce tearing.

    Gee wiz Batman, that options been there for years.


    Quote Originally Posted by Newfie View Post
    Oh, I completely understand that and I am very happy with the overall progress with the open source drivers. The problem for me is not the open source stuff, but rather the poor quality of FGLRX in terms of tearing, slow scrolling, input delays , etc. I already recommend AMD cards to non-gamer Linux users.

    Apart from 3d performance the open source driver does almost everything I'd ever need it for. It's just not good enough for my needs in that area. Apparently power management is rather lacking on the high-end, too, but I cannot comment on that as I just have a low end Caicos.

    I've only been using an AMD card on my main machine for about a year, and it has not been a positive experience. It's just the horrible desktop performance. 3D works great, but the tearing and 2d lag drives me insane. The open source driver is *almost* usable for me, but still not quite there yet.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    south east
    Posts
    342

    Default And in the real world...

    People go for the deal. I can pickup an AMD laptop/graphics combo for less than 300 bones.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,072

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropy View Post
    My question has not been a rhetorical one.
    I simply don't know it.

    Let's assume they make use of the available OpenGL cores (from the windows driver implementations for instance)
    and just wrap around platform specific code - similar to what NVidia and AMD does for their Linux blobs.
    Then why is it that they still stick with OpenGL 3.2 in Lion?
    Yes, there might be reasons for that - other than writing large parts of it on their own - but it's strange, isn't it?

    Edit: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...item&px=OTI0OA ("Mac Graphics Drivers Are Still Troubled", March 25, 2011)
    The driver situation on Macs is very similar to Windows.

    On Windows, Microsoft implements Direct3D, and the vendor drivers are expected to hook into it.

    The same is true for Apple's implementation of OpenGL on Macs.

    They implement a lot of the high-level code but leave a lot of it still to AMD and NVidia. Their OpenGL implementations on Windows and Linux have to do more to re-implement the parts that Apple does.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squirrl View Post
    AMD Catalyst Control Center // Display Options // Tear Free // Enable Tear Free Desktop to reduce tearing.

    Gee wiz Batman, that options been there for years.
    That option would be quite nice if it didn't significantly reduce overall performance.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Newfie View Post
    That option would be quite nice if it didn't significantly reduce overall performance.
    What kind of performance problems do you experience?

  9. #59
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    AMD has been mailing it in for years now and their excuses are getting pretty lame at this point.

    NVIDIA supports FreeBSD, Linux, OS X, Solaris, Windows and embedded platforms like Android. AMD is basically Windows or GTFO.

    NVIDIA is aggressively pursuing future markets and supporting a broad variety of platforms, rather than resting on the laurels of early 2000's fanboyism. AMD still doesn't see any utility in the smartphone / tablet market.

    Want to build a low-end HTPC with AMD? Get ready to fork over $100 for a Windows license. Meanwhile NVIDIA gives us VDPAU on a $10 card.

    Want to do GPGPU computing? Good luck on a UNIX-like system. But at least AMD software engineers are giving us OpenCL-enabled WinZip and HandBrake (on Windows). There goes a top priority.

    Seriously, I've got nothing positive to say about this company any more. My early-2000s love affair is totally dead at this point.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,033

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattst88 View Post
    Another aspect is when said non-developers compare vendors on things such as time between hardware release and usable drivers.
    That is a completely valid comparison, as such drivers should always be ready at launch time irrespective of the company.

Posting Permissions

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