Page 7 of 29 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 283

Thread: AMD Releases Open-Source UVD Video Support

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Deathsimple View Post
    Thx for the reminder, changing the page right now. Edit: Ok not changing this, cause I can't remember my password for it (and the register server seems to be down).
    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    I tried too, but seems my wiki account has been removed, along with many others (all who are listed with hostnames/IPs/???s in the changelog instead of account names. Likely a casualty of the spam cleanups.
    OK, so it's not just me being brain-dead and forgetting my password. Whew

    I tried to update the page last night but couldn't get in either.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r_a_trip View Post
    I, for one, choose to use AMD based systems. If it does what I need it to do, why not use AMD kit? Also, Intel needs competiton to keep them honest and pushing innovation.
    Intel burns your AMD system twofold. There is simply no competition.
    So you will have to replace radeon with catalyst, forget about everything opensource and enjoy lovely bugs.

    I choose Intel three times already, no regrets. Opensource the way its meant to be!

    If AMD wants to compete with Intel, it would need
    a) to hire 20-30 engineers dedicated to opensource driver that will actually start adding features instead of backporting them or accepting outside patches (what Intel calls "Intel Opensource Technology Center").
    b) release power management documentation god damn it
    c) fix poor 3D performance

    Thats above is "if AMD wants", because Intel already has it covered.

    Quote Originally Posted by newwen View Post
    One more reason to support AMD and buy AMD graphic cards instead of Nvidia.
    You buy their cards to use it with pathetic driver, knowing that they actually only support catalyst which is pathetic closed source compared to closed source nvidia?
    If you are opensource supporter, buy Intel. If you are not - buy nvidia.
    Last edited by brosis; 04-03-2013 at 09:27 AM.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,987

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r_a_trip View Post
    I, for one, choose to use AMD based systems. If it does what I need it to do, why not use AMD kit? Also, Intel needs competiton to keep them honest and pushing innovation.
    Not to mention, the "M" in "650M" is for "Mobile".
    Also important to consider is the fact that the 650M has been on the market for *over a year* and is being compared to something that is *not yet available*. So OMGWOW, intel will soon be able to perform kinda sorta almost as good with their **TOP END** chip as LAST YEAR's nvidia *MIDDLE OF THE ROAD MOBILE* chip.

    Also, its being spanked severely by AMD.
    http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/up...ns-at-CES1.jpg

    Note that those results are REAL results on the HD4000 and 5800k, INTEL's CLAIM on the GT3 -- quite literally "twice" HD4000, and AMD's CLAIM on the 6800k. You can note that they're not even claiming to be CLOSE to the 5800k.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    OK, so it's not just me being brain-dead and forgetting my password. Whew

    I tried to update the page last night but couldn't get in either.
    All the wiki accounts were disabled during the spam overload on fdo. You have to request your account be restored manually now.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    Not to mention, the "M" in "650M" is for "Mobile".
    Also important to consider is the fact that the 650M has been on the market for *over a year* and is being compared to something that is *not yet available*. So OMGWOW, intel will soon be able to perform kinda sorta almost as good with their **TOP END** chip as LAST YEAR's nvidia *MIDDLE OF THE ROAD MOBILE* chip.

    Also, its being spanked severely by AMD.
    http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/up...ns-at-CES1.jpg

    Note that those results are REAL results on the HD4000 and 5800k, INTEL's CLAIM on the GT3 -- quite literally "twice" HD4000, and AMD's CLAIM on the 6800k. You can note that they're not even claiming to be CLOSE to the 5800k.
    You sure you compared your AMD chip using opensource drivers? Or was that on windows?
    Because AMD APU chips perform 5% of performance (as in twenty times slower) with opensource driver; and Intel chips perform 95% with opensource driver.
    Last edited by brosis; 04-03-2013 at 09:44 AM.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,987

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    Intel burns your AMD system twofold. There is simply no competition.
    At least not once the koolaid has been consumed, as you obviously have.

    So you will have to replace radeon with catalyst, forget about everything opensource and enjoy lovely bugs.
    Why would anybody possibly want to use catalyst??? Radeon performs close (and in some cases *ahead*) of catalyst, and supports everything that catalyst does.

    I choose Intel three times already, no regrets. Opensource the way its meant to be!
    Are you possibly confusing AMD with nvidia??? I choose AMD ***because of open source***.

    If AMD wants to compete with Intel, it would need
    a) to hire 20-30 engineers dedicated to opensource driver that will actually start adding features instead of backporting them or accepting outside patches (what Intel calls "Intel Opensource Technology Center").
    Ok, so you want to REALLY MURDERFY intel then? LOL.

    b) release power management documentation god damn it
    That would be helpful, but you can control power consumption quite easily already.

    c) fix poor 3D performance
    ... uh, right. That poor 3D performance that is already WAY WAY better than intel, and "right up there" with nvidia blobs?

    Thats above is "if AMD wants", because Intel already has it covered.
    AMD is basically ahead of intel in ALL of your "wants".

    You buy their cards to use it with pathetic driver, knowing that they actually only support catalyst which is pathetic closed source compared to closed source nvidia?
    If you are opensource supporter, buy Intel. If you are not - buy nvidia.
    If you are an opensource supporter, buy AMD. AMD open source stuff actually works. Too bad you drank the koolaid.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,987

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    You sure you compared your AMD chip using opensource drivers? Or was that on windows?
    Because AMD APU chips perform 5% of performance (as in twenty times slower) with opensource driver; and Intel chips perform 95% with opensource driver.
    That's absurd. The open source drivers are very close to the blobs. You're way behind the times.

    Also, there's no such thing as "twenty times slower". "times" means multiply. You can't multiply "slowness".

  8. #68
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    That's absurd. The open source drivers are very close to the blobs. You're way behind the times.

    Also, there's no such thing as "twenty times slower". "times" means multiply. You can't multiply "slowness".

    They are in very few scenarios. In more cases then not they are usually much slower then their blob counterparts.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,987

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    They are in very few scenarios. In more cases then not they are usually much slower then their blob counterparts.
    *marginally*, not "much". There are some cases where the oss driver is AHEAD of the blob.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    That's absurd. The open source drivers are very close to the blobs. You're way behind the times.
    No - APUs are definitely a lot slower. "Very close to the blobs" is very much a hyperbole, and only true with certain GPUs and few 3D applications. But on APUs the gap is even bigger, compared to desktop GPUs. The most serious problem is that APUs can't be reclocked to their full clock, and so by means of clock speed they are limited to ~40% of their actual performance level.

Posting Permissions

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