Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: GLAMOR 0.5 To Advance 2D Over OpenGL

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    357

    Default

    Glamor w/ radeon works fine here, but performance is much worse than EXA, and there are various artefacts. I remain unimpressed, and I am pretty sure it will stay that way.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Old Europe
    Posts
    904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brent View Post
    Glamor w/ radeon works fine here, but performance is much worse than EXA, and there are various artefacts. I remain unimpressed, and I am pretty sure it will stay that way.
    That would be close to a disaster for users of Radeon HD 7000+ chipsets.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    entropy, there's nothing in the hardware that ties it to Glamour, so at worst it would be a "temporary inconvenience" not a "disaster"...
    Last edited by bridgman; 07-29-2012 at 05:01 PM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Old Europe
    Posts
    904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    entropy, there's nothing in the hardware that ties it to Glamour, so at worst it would be a "temporary inconvenience" not a "disaster"...
    Sorry, for getting infected by the tabloid speech.

    What's the plan for 2d on SI+ then?
    I thought it should be just Glamor (apart from ShadowFB).

    Not sure how much the 2d performance depends on the compositor.
    I don't use one of those eye-candy 3d compositors and scrolling performance
    had been quite sluggish depending on the content.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropy View Post
    Sorry, for getting infected by the tabloid speech.

    What's the plan for 2d on SI+ then?
    I thought it should be just Glamor (apart from ShadowFB).

    Not sure how much the 2d performance depends on the compositor.
    I don't use one of those eye-candy 3d compositors and scrolling performance
    had been quite sluggish depending on the content.
    I'd guess the idea is to make Glamor better with both Intel and AMD supporting it? Sharing the workload will only benefit everyone involved; if thats the case it's likely to end up bullet proof in the long run. They've still got some ways to go, but I imagine they're still working on it.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropy View Post
    What's the plan for 2d on SI+ then?
    I thought it should be just Glamor (apart from ShadowFB).
    The plan is pretty simple -- get the 3D driver working (there's been some good progress in the last week), see how Glamour works on SI, if it's sucky try to make it better, and if making it better doesn't go well (ie if we conclude that Glamour isn't ready for "prime time" yet) then look into alternatives. It just seems that since most of the toolkits are running directly over OpenGL then doing the same with the X driver has to be the right thing at some point, and it seems like that point is probably kinda now-ish.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    The plan is pretty simple -- get the 3D driver working (there's been some good progress in the last week), see how Glamour works on SI, if it's sucky try to make it better, and if making it better doesn't go well (ie if we conclude that Glamour isn't ready for "prime time" yet) then look into alternatives. It just seems that since most of the toolkits are running directly over OpenGL then doing the same with the X driver has to be the right thing at some point, and it seems like that point is probably kinda now-ish.
    As a small counter to all the silly negative feedback you guys get around here, I think you're doing an awesome job and am very happy you communicate directly with the community.

    People need to stop acting like its the end of the world because bridgeman didn't do 9 years of dev work by himself, using his probably non-existant open source mobile phone, jury rigged to his windows only supported modem.

    /me is happy getting well over 100fps with my 5850 and open drivers. Keep up the good work Radeon dev guys.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Old Europe
    Posts
    904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    The plan is pretty simple -- get the 3D driver working (there's been some good progress in the last week), see how Glamour works on SI, if it's sucky try to make it better, and if making it better doesn't go well (ie if we conclude that Glamour isn't ready for "prime time" yet) then look into alternatives. It just seems that since most of the toolkits are running directly over OpenGL then doing the same with the X driver has to be the right thing at some point, and it seems like that point is probably kinda now-ish.
    This sounds promising and a bit different from what I read before.
    Thanks for sharing!

    Since ownagefool has the impression that there's negative feedback all over the place,
    I might add that I do appreciate the work done by the FOSS devs.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Hello,

    I would be interested to hear about the reasons why the GLAMOR architecture was chosen for 2D acceleration instead of the xorg or xa state tracker. The last time I was trying out the xorg state tracker the experience wasn't too bad although there were some glitches. Are there any advantages GLAMOR offers over the mentioned state tracker or is it simply that two Intel developers are working on the GLAMOR architecture? It's seems to been a while since there was any work done on the xa state tracker.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    This has been discussed in more detail in other threads, but agd5f's last comment was basically that the state trackers were based on EXA and so would have all the same limitations EXA does in the native X driver, while Glamor didn't start with the same restrictions.

    My view was a bit less technical -- given that toolkits and apps are increasingly running over OpenGL, it seems like a good time to start doing the same with X

Posting Permissions

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