Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: KDE Desktop Won't Force You To Use LLVMpipe

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,182

    Default KDE Desktop Won't Force You To Use LLVMpipe

    Phoronix: KDE Desktop Won't Force You To Use LLVMpipe

    While Canonical dropped Unity 2D in favour of using Unity and the Compiz window manager atop Gallium3D's software-accelerated LLVMpipe driver when no GPU hardware driver is available, and some distributions have done similar moves with the GNOME Shell on LLVMpipe, it doesn't look like the KDE desktop will be doing this risky move as any sanctioned default...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,601

    Default

    That's nice. Like Martin said, it makes no sense to fall back to LLVMpipe because if you do need to fall back, then your system most likely is too slow to support OpenGL in the first place, and thus most likely has a slow CPU. The only other scenario I can think of is if it's a server with some esoteric graphics card, but then it would probably not use an X server to begin with, not even talking about compositing.

    And yeap, the performance of Unity over LLVMpipe on my GMA 600 device is abysmal. Moving any window makes the screen refresh at something like 5 FPS. That's just not good at all, compared to things like XFCE desktop, where there are no issues like that at all.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    That's nice. Like Martin said, it makes no sense to fall back to LLVMpipe because if you do need to fall back, then your system most likely is too slow to support OpenGL in the first place, and thus most likely has a slow CPU.
    This. Video cards w/o OpenGL acceleration belong to the AGP era (or even before that). Which CPU that runs on an AGP capable board has the extra horse power to run OpenGL?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    836

    Default

    If your hardware is too old to provide the requirements for OpenGL based compositing, it is quite likely that your CPU is also rather old. We can assume a single-core CPU of either the Pentium era or an early Atom.
    Fortunately the earliest Atoms (N270, 330) use Intel 945 or NVidia Ion graphics and are well supported by Mesa. Only the Z-series and Cedar Trail Atoms with PowerVR graphics cause headaches for their owners.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bug77 View Post
    This. Video cards w/o OpenGL acceleration belong to the AGP era (or even before that). Which CPU that runs on an AGP capable board has the extra horse power to run OpenGL?
    AGP? You're off by two entire interface generations.

    I remember paying a couple hundred dollars for a 3DLabs Permedia graphics card that could do OpenGL with an ISA 16-bit bus.

    For years before that, people joked about the next generation of graphics cards having "billions of colors" instead of "millions of colors", and I remember reading article after article about how worthless the next generation of graphics cards were going to be.. Even reputable magazines like PC World joked about how worthless the next generation of graphics cards were going to be...

    Then it turned out the next generation of graphics cards ended up having 3D chips and everybody just dropped everything and went out and bought one and totally forgot about the "billions of colors" versus "millions of colors" jokes... That was the 16-bit ISA generation.

    PCI came later when they wanted to show more than a couple 3D things on the screen at the same time, and AGP came much later when they started shoving detailed textures onto those 3D things.
    Last edited by Sidicas; 10-09-2012 at 09:45 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    291

    Default

    Ahem... what about systems that have as yet unsupported graphics cards and fast CPUs... that would be the target for LLVM as a holdover untill the 3d drivers get written.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cb88 View Post
    Ahem... what about systems that have as yet unsupported graphics cards and fast CPUs... that would be the target for LLVM as a holdover untill the 3d drivers get written.
    He basically said to run the binary blob drivers in that situation.

    To that, I'll add, If you don't want to run binary blob drivers in that situation, then don't buy graphics hardware that is not supported by open source drivers in the first place. Yes, Southern Islands and some nVidia Optimus hardware, I'm referring to you! Nobody wants you, go away.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,122

    Default

    LLVMpipe uses modern CPU instructions such as AVX.
    But all modern CPU which have AVX already have a built-in GPU.

    Those CPU without a built-in GPU, also does not have AVX.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,196

    Default

    Bulldozer doesn't exist? It has AVX and no GPU.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Bulldozer doesn't exist? It has AVX and no GPU.
    Well, I guess Bulldozer is some exception then.

    Because Core 2 Duo doesn't have AVX.
    Core i5 have AVX and also GPU.

    AMD Trinity have GPU.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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