Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: AMD Has No Plans To Suspend Catalyst For Linux

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,191

    Default AMD Has No Plans To Suspend Catalyst For Linux

    Phoronix: AMD Has No Plans To Suspend Catalyst For Linux

    Since AMD's decision to discontinue HD 2000/3000/4000 series support from the Catalyst driver plus other changes that upset some hardware owners, there's been some rumors that AMD may be discontinuing development of the Catalyst Linux driver and focus solely upon the open-source AMD Linux driver...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTEyMzI

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,641

    Default

    I do not see any source link in that article only links to phoronix? Where is the source? It would be unlogical to drop fglrx completely but who is Jammy Zhou and where did he say something?
    Last edited by Kano; 06-19-2012 at 08:24 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    869

    Default

    To clear up the rumors, Jammy Zhou of AMD said, "We will definitely continue the fglrx development, which is becoming more and more important for AMD."
    thats it, to say we continue it, because whatever ok, but to say that gets more important so in the conterpart the open one becomes less important (logical) is the nail, I will not go for amd anymore, if the hardware is not extremly more expensive for the same feature I will buy Intel hardware in the future.

    bb amd....

  4. #4

    Default I hope AMD does eliminate Catalyst

    Not now, of course.

    When the performance is better. Once more features are in place. Power management, perhaps.

    It's the logical endgame, anyways. Who really thinks AMD wants to keep up two different driver lines in perpetuity? It seems fairly clear to me that the long(really, the long long long long long) game is to one day have the OSS driver be the only one. They did port it to Windows, after all.

    Do you want Mesa updated almost instantly when OpenGL 4.6 is introduced? 5.2? (pick a number) It's much more likely that AMD will contribute to Mesa like Intel is doing if they're only tied into the OSS, and not into Catalyst as well.

    Realistically, years from now - The OSS driver should stand alone having deprecated Catalyst.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    33

    Default Where's the black magic hiding?

    I'm more curious about what kind of black magic of graphics driver development (science?) has not been revealed by now in white papers, verbally, subtle hints, etc. Surely the fast-path "trickery" for specific programs can't explain all the performance difference... Being this frustrated, I can only imagine the open source devs'.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    thats it, to say we continue it, because whatever ok, but to say that gets more important so in the conterpart the open one becomes less important (logical) is the nail, I will not go for amd anymore, if the hardware is not extremly more expensive for the same feature I will buy Intel hardware in the future.

    bb amd....
    OK, I have to ask.. how can you possibly look at market trends and our own presentations (nobody seems to have commented on the open source plans discussed at AFDS yet, which is surprising) then conclude that "fglrx getting more important" means that the open source driver is becoming less important ? Did all the other OSes disappear from the market while I was travelling ?

    Quote Originally Posted by tsuru View Post
    I'm more curious about what kind of black magic of graphics driver development (science?) has not been revealed by now in white papers, verbally, subtle hints, etc. Surely the fast-path "trickery" for specific programs can't explain all the performance difference... Being this frustrated, I can only imagine the open source devs'.
    There isn't any black magic AFAIK, just lots of optimization work. The open source driver isn't at the point yet where per-application "tricks" are the best use of time -- that comes in somewhere around 80% average performance relative to Catalyst (roughly where the r300g driver is today). There is still lots of room for generic improvements, like the shader caching changes in the last couple of weeks and all the 2D tiling / HyperZ work being done now.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsuru View Post
    I'm more curious about what kind of black magic of graphics driver development (science?) has not been revealed by now in white papers, verbally, subtle hints, etc. Surely the fast-path "trickery" for specific programs can't explain all the performance difference... Being this frustrated, I can only imagine the open source devs'.
    I think a lot has to do with just managing memory/states better - every time the card flushes data to the CPU or vice versa it introduces a huge delay, and I think the proprietary drivers are just much smarter at minimizing the number of those that are required.

    That's a tricky thing to optimize, because you have to look at the whole flow of how the driver is working, you can't just sit down and optimize 1 function or 1 file. In fact, a lot is probably tied into the cross-driver bits of Mesa rather than even 1 specific hardware driver.

    I imagine that effects Intel much less since their GPU is sitting right on the die along with the CPU, and also because it is relatively much less powerful - which means delays are both shorter and less likely to be noticed in the first place.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    thats it, to say we continue it, because whatever ok, but to say that gets more important so in the conterpart the open one becomes less important (logical) is the nail, I will not go for amd anymore, if the hardware is not extremly more expensive for the same feature I will buy Intel hardware in the future.

    bb amd....
    That does not follow logically. Jammy said only, "We will definitely continue the fglrx development, which is becoming more and more important for AMD," and you assumed the extension 'compared to open source development.' That does not follow. He could have just as easily meant, 'compared to development of drivers for Windows.' For all we know he could have meant, 'compared to daily donut runs.' You can't just assume that they are reducing development efforts toward the open source drivers by what he said, not logically anyway.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CFWhitman View Post
    That does not follow logically. Jammy said only, "We will definitely continue the fglrx development, which is becoming more and more important for AMD," and you assumed the extension 'compared to open source development.' That does not follow. He could have just as easily meant, 'compared to development of drivers for Windows.' For all we know he could have meant, 'compared to daily donut runs.' You can't just assume that they are reducing development efforts toward the open source drivers by what he said, not logically anyway.
    but that sounds like they will not kill it anytime not even in middle (far future) they have no plans to do so that sucks enough. and if they wanted to say, linux becomes more important why didnt say that, because this driver where amd puts more resources in than for the open one will be at least stay the main focus (more manpower) thats retarded, I cant understand that, when people want to use a binary blob they buy nvidia cards because the nvidia driver for linux is better than the amd one, so the only advantage amd has, is the open driver so I just cant understand this ignorance.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    (more manpower) thats retarded, I cant understand that, when people want to use a binary blob they buy nvidia cards because the nvidia driver for linux is better than the amd one, so the only advantage amd has, is the open driver so I just cant understand this ignorance
    Both the ignorance and the arrogance is on the side that assumes there will be only one driver and one license. I don't really see how radeon advocates, who are supposed to be the openminded and accommodating crowd, take the view that their view is the only view that there is. What happens is that it undermines the entire radeon movement and has created a counterpush movement against radeon because of the fascist attitudes in the radeon advocacy crowd.

    It's no skin off your back if another driver is pushed by AMD; it's not your money; it's not your work; you don't have groceries at home that were purchased with an AMD paycheck; so my advice is simply to mind your own business and quit worrying about what's happening on the other side of your fence. If other people choose other licenses to run on their machines and their os, then frankly that is none of your business; the fact that you think it is makes you look fascist. The fact that you feel compelled to deride other people's decisions and their intelligence based on their non-adoption of what has been made to look like a cult tends to cast doubt on your decisions and intelligence.

Posting Permissions

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