Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: APU chips and AMD Radeon™ Dual Graphics

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    379

    Default APU chips and AMD Radeon™ Dual Graphics

    Something for Tim

    I looked through tons of notebooks with A10 chips and integrated HD graphic, this should just work with the open driver (it is mostly 7660G)?

    Then there are a lot of notebooks with an extra dedicated AMD Radeon HD 7970 to use AMD Radeon™ Dual Graphics (like SLI/Crossfire?). Would this be supported in the open driver or does it use Crossfire (and will probably never be supported*), which isn't supported if I check the matrix?

    I understand HD 7xxx is radeonsi, does it work at all yet or are the missing features 'just' about performance?

    Thank you.

    * I used to have an HD 4770 crossfire setup in the past, when just the open driver came out and nothing happens since then with the open driver...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disi View Post
    I looked through tons of notebooks with A10 chips and integrated HD graphic, this should just work with the open driver (it is mostly 7660G)?
    Yes. Trinity APUs are supported by the open source driver. You will need mesa 8.0.5 or 9.0 for 3D support.

    Quote Originally Posted by disi View Post
    Then there are a lot of notebooks with an extra dedicated AMD Radeon HD 7970 to use AMD Radeon™ Dual Graphics (like SLI/Crossfire?). Would this be supported in the open driver or does it use Crossfire (and will probably never be supported*), which isn't supported if I check the matrix?
    It should work with the open source driver, however note that for multi-GPU laptops you will need xserver 1.13, xf86-video-ati 7.0.0 and a recent kernel with dma_buf support in order to properly select which GPU is used for rendering. Crossfire could be implemented, but so far no one has tackled it yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by disi View Post
    I understand HD 7xxx is radeonsi, does it work at all yet or are the missing features 'just' about performance?
    Modesetting works fine as do most basic 3D apps. That last major hurdle is fixing flow control in the shader compiler. Once that's working we can enable glamor by default for X acceleration and a lot more 3D apps will work.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disi View Post
    I understand HD 7xxx is radeonsi, does it work at all yet or are the missing features 'just' about performance?
    Only 7750 and higher are radeonsi. For 7670 and below, mesa will use the r600 driver. See the decoder ring below the feature matrix.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    379

    Default

    Thanks guys, I found some interesting benchmarks:
    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...BY-1208055BY73
    It looks the CPU related tests are faster with the binary driver, so it uses the GPU to support CPU related load which the open driver doesn't yet?

    OK, Fedora 17 with Linux-3.5, x-server 1.12 and ati-driver 6.14...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,723

    Default

    so it uses the GPU to support CPU related load which the open driver doesn't yet?
    Nope. The x264 etc differences are due to something else, perhaps the different kernel.

    There doesn't yet exist magic technology to run something built for a cpu on a gpu.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Nope. The x264 etc differences are due to something else, perhaps the different kernel.

    There doesn't yet exist magic technology to run something built for a cpu on a gpu.
    Ahh, didn't see that 3.3 vs. 3.5, thanks.
    It just looks like it, Linux-3.5 and binary fglrx is faster than Linux-3.3 with radeon driver in every test. Sometimes twice as fast!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    379

    Default

    For myself as a reference..
    I just ran a benchmark amd a10-4600m vs. my i7-2820qm with dedicated AMD card
    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...BY-1208141BY14

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disi View Post
    For myself as a reference..
    I just ran a benchmark amd a10-4600m vs. my i7-2820qm with dedicated AMD card
    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...BY-1208141BY14
    Main difference are the kernel versions in the test between 3.3 and 3.6.

    The Intel CPU is faster in all tests except the 'Flexible IO Tester', where it lacks behind the apu. Does that imply, the apu is more responsive under load? Like in this video (Llano chipset, not Trinity) Notebook Test: AMD Llano vs Intel Sandy Bridge

    The Intel CPU Speed advantage is between 0% (FFmpeg) to 100% (x264).
    $143.68 vs $570 (chip price only on amd.com the desktop version and intel.com the mobile version)

    Graphic tests cannot be compared, though I am happy that my 6970m with open drivers can compete with the Catalyst driver on the integrated GPU (not mentioning OpenArena, but totally playable ). The dedicated AMD card would be working well in both laptops. The versions of the open radeon driver and x-server are too low to support the integrated GPU, this is why it says LLVMPipe.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    5

    Default

    See the decoder ring below the feature matrix.
    Last edited by Speirs68; 11-22-2012 at 10:15 PM.

Posting Permissions

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