First, many thanks to twriter, bridgeman and other guys from AMD Tux dept. Quick graphics become a serious parameter on linux as native linux games become reality. This is a crutial argument for AMD head telling them where is their bussiness weakness. People on linux are a great potential for AMD GPU selling figures in the near future with free driver utilizing all GPUs' features and power potential.
Last edited by agd5f; 04-04-2013 at 11:28 AM.
This was the question. I saw the RLC blob had also changed, so had to check.the newer RLC ucode works fine with older kernels.
The limitation was not about the forced clock being too high, it was about it being too low.It's not a limitation, it's a performance requirement. The clocks need to be high enough to provide appropriate memory bandwidth and graphics performance for a good video experience. In theory we should be doing the same thing, although we don't enforce it yet.
Ie, you have both UVD video and something heavy running. On Windows, the UVD clock is forced, and it's not the highest state, which you want for that other activity.
But thanks, that answers it - it's not a hw limit, but up to the driver which clock to set. So just please make sure to have the UVD clock be a minimum, not both a minimum and maximum.
I'm asking because I set my profile in Linux to "low" since dynamic PM doesn't seem to use it (only med and high). But static low worked nicely for me and gives me even 1W consumption less for the whole box (measured on the "wall side") than W32 with Catalyst.
I had hoped I could keep my "low".
You might be seeing a bug. AFAIK the idea was that the UVD power state would be the lowest allowable when UVD was running, and that a higher state still might be selected if, say, a 3D-intensive app was running. Every hardware generation is a bit different though, so it's hard to generalize.
and also with new vdpau xbmc code. 1080p movies are now playing fine.
I also tested adobe flash plugin with
OverrideGPUValidation = 1
option sset and had render *and* decode hardware accelerated! 1080p youtube was now playing nicely where before I was able to watch 480p only.
vdpauinfo reports such capabilities:
name level macbs width height
MPEG1 16 1048576 16384 16384
MPEG2_SIMPLE 16 1048576 16384 16384
MPEG2_MAIN 16 1048576 16384 16384
H264_BASELINE 16 9216 2048 1152
H264_MAIN 16 9216 2048 1152
H264_HIGH 16 9216 2048 1152
VC1_SIMPLE 16 9216 2048 1152
VC1_MAIN 16 9216 2048 1152
VC1_ADVANCED 16 9216 2048 1152
MPEG4_PART2_SP 16 9216 2048 1152
MPEG4_PART2_ASP 16 9216 2048 1152
Header files are to software libraries as programming specifications are to hardware. Hardware programming specifications would reveal information such as "to enable feature x, write value y to register z". Hardware programming specifications do not reveal anything about the design of feature x or even register z implementation in the hardware itself.
It is true that AMD's hardware design is AMD's IP and this IP is rightfully protected by AMD as a trade secret. That is all well and good, and entirely proper. No-one would expect anything else ... but no-one is asking for deatils about AMD's implementation of feature x in AMDs hardware designs, all that is asked for is the programming specifications. As you well know, AMD have released quite a number of programming specifications for 2D and 3D graphics acceleration features of their hardware designs in the past:
These are programming specifications, they do not reveal AMD's hardware design for 2D and 3D graphics acceleration features. No-one has been able to use this information to make clones of AMD hardware. Don't misunderstand, the open source community is no doubt extremely grateful to AMD for releasing this information. In fact, it is precisely because AMD did release that information that many people who use open source software (myself included) have invested in AMD hardware rather than hardware from other manufacturers. It is AMD's support for open source that drove the purchase decision in the first place. To release this information is a positive for AMD, and it has not hurt AMD at all in terms of "giving away" AMD's IP.
My question is not meant to criticise AMD at all, indeed I applaud AMD's open source efforts so far, but rather to enquire why this effort is incomplete. If AMD can release programming specifications for a large set of features within their hardware, with no harm resulting to AMD and no hardware design IP thereby revealed, and indeed positive purchase decisions have resulted from AMD's programming specifications so far, then what is the problem (I am asking) with the last bit ... to whit, the programming specifiactions for power management?
To my mind, I can't see why just this bit is missing. Perhaps I am missing something, but to me it doesn't make any sense for AMD to just leave out the last bit.
Thankyou for your reply insofar as it goes, but I'm afraid that it didn't really address the question I raise. Why the delay with the last piece of programming specifications? I just don't get it. Why would AMD do most of the job of providing programming specifications, discover that no harm comes to AMD as a result of doing so, indeed find that they have attracted a following because of these actions, but then just leave out the last bit (power management) ... possibly driving customers to Intel in the future in the process?
I truly don't get it.
Last edited by hal2k1; 04-04-2013 at 10:46 PM.
Seems to me that you are either suggesting that we made a decision to release "everything but power management", or maybe that everything we released so far was easy to do but for some reason we are applying a totally different standard to power management and delaying it as a result.
The reality is nothing of the sort. Pretty much everything we released has involved a lot of time and effort, and power management is just one more step. There's no "delay with the last piece"... it's going to end up taking about the same amount of time as other complex blocks we exposed.
I realize I may still not be answering your question but you are asking me to explain a situation that doesn't actually exist. It's like stopping the mailman while he's walking from the second-last house on the street to the last house and asking "why did you decide not to deliver mail to that last house".
Obviously the time scale is different (months rather than seconds) but that's the best analogy I can come up with.
If you're just asking "why don't you just release stuff rather than doing a lot of work and taking a lot of time ?" that's a different question and has nothing to do with power management.
Let me know if that's the real question and I'll either try to answer it again or (hopefully) find one of the posts where I answered it before
Last edited by bridgman; 04-05-2013 at 12:31 AM.
I don't really think it was a time scale problem as much as it was an order of deliverance problem. Power management is much more important than some other features that were delivered earlier.I sticking with your analogy, Power managemt wasnt the last house on the street, it was the third house that got skipped over and now you're back tracking.
However I do also believe that it was a learning experience for all involved. I don't think AMD will be so naive about power management in the future. I'm convinced that AMD has learned from from all the backlash and will make sure newer hardware generations get power managemt in the order that it's importance deserves.
What do you think the order should have been ? The main blocks we covered before UVD and power management were display and the 3D graphics engine -- I'm not sure which of those we could have delayed to let power management happen faster. Releasing updates to those blocks for newer hardware generally involved different resources, so proceeding with one did not significantly delay the other.
We had scheduled and were expecting power management to get approved before UVD, but in the end UVD took a bit less time than we expected and power management took a bit more time.
I guess we could have shifted focus from the 3D engine around the GL 1.5 - GL 2.0 stage and put more effort on getting the next round of power management started earlier, but I'm not sure that even today that people would agree that was the right decision, and it certainly didn't seem that way at the time.
The sequencing options we had were basically to delay new display or 3D graphics features, or delay UVD another couple of years to make sure it didn't interfere with power management. None of those seemed very attractive. Do you disagree ?
The option we *did* have (and decided at the time not to take) was improving the interim driver-based power management we have today. We did discuss that quite a bit a couple of years ago, but so far I haven't found a single developer who thinks that spending time on that would have been a good idea. There are probably some non-AMD developers who feel it would have been good for AMD developers to work on it, but the AMD developers didn't think it was a good idea either.
Last edited by bridgman; 04-05-2013 at 01:45 AM.