Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 71

Thread: Open-Source ATI 6.8.0 Driver Released

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,572

    Default

    There is no open source 3d or video acceleration for X1600 yet. We're working hard to change that.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by givemesugarr View Post
    r300 chipset architecture integrated into motherboard without vertex shaders and without dedicated memory (it's quite a bad board itself).
    Well... Not ALL iterations of the Xpress 200M GPU were UMA only. I know, my previous laptop from HP was one with "Sideport" memory, which was 128Mb of dedicated VRAM of the traditional type combined with either UMA or using UMA only. I could never get any of the modern fglrx drivers to work with anything other than UMA only mode with it, so, with all the other drawbacks, it got relegated to be my mother's computer, since it was more than serviceable under XP.

    What I want to know is what possessed ATI to make such stinkers in the first place- when they had the lead with the R200 mobility parts and they DID have T&L hardware? (No, I don't expect an answer...I just expect better from you guys going forward... )

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Svartalf View Post
    Well... Not ALL iterations of the Xpress 200M GPU were UMA only. I know, my previous laptop from HP was one with "Sideport" memory, which was 128Mb of dedicated VRAM of the traditional type combined with either UMA or using UMA only. I could never get any of the modern fglrx drivers to work with anything other than UMA only mode with it, so, with all the other drawbacks, it got relegated to be my mother's computer, since it was more than serviceable under XP.

    What I want to know is what possessed ATI to make such stinkers in the first place- when they had the lead with the R200 mobility parts and they DID have T&L hardware? (No, I don't expect an answer...I just expect better from you guys going forward... )
    As much as we dislike them, something like 70% of computers sold have IGP graphics on them. When graphics are more or less free when you buy the chipset, it make a compelling argument if you are an OEM

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Svartalf View Post

    What I want to know is what possessed ATI to make such stinkers in the first place- when they had the lead with the R200 mobility parts and they DID have T&L hardware? (No, I don't expect an answer...I just expect better from you guys going forward... )
    It's call transistor count... fitting a TCL or Vertex processor onto an integrated chipset device requires lots of transitors. Also for that market segment they mostly don't expect tcl/vertex shaders because Intel didn't do it either.

    Now that shaders are unified they will probably just put less of them on future integrated chipsets and you can do TCL with some of the threads. again what Intel have done with 965.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by agd5f View Post
    As much as we dislike them, something like 70% of computers sold have IGP graphics on them. When graphics are more or less free when you buy the chipset, it make a compelling argument if you are an OEM
    Won't argue the compelling argument there- I've had to deal with some of the board vendors (ECS...) directly in the past when one of my other business ventures was doing embedded Linux for Internet Appliances. The only REAL complaint would be that the cuts to get the transistor counts down were...iffy...at best in the case of ATI's chips. The reality is that they managed to HAVE TCL support in the previous lineup of chips, even if it wasn't Vertex shader based, in spite of that argument.

    Right now, it's water under the bridge, really.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by airlied View Post
    It's call transistor count... fitting a TCL or Vertex processor onto an integrated chipset device requires lots of transitors. Also for that market segment they mostly don't expect tcl/vertex shaders because Intel didn't do it either.
    Heh... The problem with that thinking is that they managed to HAVE TCL in the previous series without this issue coming up. That's just...frustrating.

    As for the market segment, they're the ones that actually MADE it (In laptops, that is...) in the first place with the Radeon Mobility lineup. Why slack off to what the competitor can manage when you're already vastly better than they are in the first place?

    Now that shaders are unified they will probably just put less of them on future integrated chipsets and you can do TCL with some of the threads. again what Intel have done with 965.
    Heh... Like I said... Just DO better...
    Last edited by Svartalf; 02-21-2008 at 12:05 AM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Svartalf View Post
    Heh... The problem with that thinking is that they managed to HAVE TCL in the previous series without this issue coming up. That's just...frustrating.

    As for the market segment, they're the ones that actually MADE it (In laptops, that is...) in the first place with the Radeon Mobility lineup. Why slack off to what the competitor can manage when you're already vastly better than they are in the first place?



    Heh... Like I said... Just DO better...
    None of ATI integrated chipsets have ever had TCL support for my knowledge, Mesa always disabled TCL on all the ATI integrated chipsets. So transistor count is still the problem, you have more space on a dedicated GPU die than on an integrated one.

    Dave.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by airlied View Post
    None of ATI integrated chipsets have ever had TCL support for my knowledge, Mesa always disabled TCL on all the ATI integrated chipsets. So transistor count is still the problem, you have more space on a dedicated GPU die than on an integrated one.

    Dave.
    Heh... I offer this as evidence and it comes from the horse's mouth as it were:

    http://ati.amd.com/products/comparis...omparison.html

    The 7500 and 9000 mobility parts offered the Charisma Engine (TCL) and the 9000 provides Shader Model 1.4 support.

    What happens if you use driconf to override the settings on the configuration? It's not signalling any warnings on start up nor is it crashing when I force it to use hardware TCL support on the laptop I've done this to.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Svartalf View Post
    Heh... I offer this as evidence and it comes from the horse's mouth as it were:

    http://ati.amd.com/products/comparis...omparison.html

    The 7500 and 9000 mobility parts offered the Charisma Engine (TCL) and the 9000 provides Shader Model 1.4 support.

    What happens if you use driconf to override the settings on the configuration? It's not signalling any warnings on start up nor is it crashing when I force it to use hardware TCL support on the laptop I've done this to.
    Those are discrete parts. They have fully functionality. The IGP parts are different.

    IGP chips:
    ATI Radeon™ X1200 series
    ATI Radeon™ XPRESS series
    ATI Radeon™ 9100 IGP
    ATI Radeon™ 9000 IGP
    ATI Radeon™ 7000 IGP
    ATI Radeon™ 340M IGP
    ATI Radeon™ 320M IGP

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Ah... That sort of explains things a bit, then.

    Looking at a more in-depth comparison of the varying parts, the IGP parts not only were crippled in TCL, but also crippled in the fragment shader department as well. <*sigh*> That just makes for "fun" in trying to support stuff for titles and applications. Ugh...

    I'll drop the gripes about that aspect of things- but it still goes back to the "why ever have done it" that I really
    asked at the beginning of this aside. It's frustrating to have something claim to be 3D but end up being pretty much
    like the Savage of this era of chips in hand- more of a decellerator than an accelerator... >:-)
    Last edited by Svartalf; 02-21-2008 at 11:37 AM.

Posting Permissions

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