Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: (23.07.) AMD Catalyst™ OpenGL 4.3 Beta Driver

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    92

    Default

    Anyone else having issues with this and KWin? On Arch, I have 4.11RC2 and after installed the beta drivers the corners of my windows disappear some times (basicaly the min/max/close buttons on the right, and the app icon/stick button on the left). I also noticed that on sometimes the shadow/glowing border thing around a window may only render on the top/bottom (and around the corner), but the sides would be missing it. I have it pretty much on default - openGL 2.0, QT Raster, 'Accurate' for the scale method and VSYNC set to automatic (this seems new in 4.11).

  2. #22

    Default Patch for kernel 3.10

    Here is a patch for kernel 3.10:

    https://github.com/kolasa/fglrx-13.15.100.1

    I use it on Debian Testing 64-bit with kernel 3.10.2 (self-compiled).

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15

    Default

    In installed this driver, and any attempt to run OpenGL locks X.

    I think it is related to my multi-monitor setup.

    Reverting to the older driver works.

  4. #24

    Default

    Yes, there is something wrong with this driver - this is the first driver that actually locks up X and then the whole machine when using advanced opengl apps (such as TF2) or xvba hardware decoding with xbmc.
    The symptoms were increasingly high hdd activity and laggy cursor which eventually froze up and i had to force reboot the computer - it became completely unresponsive, not even the sysrq key combinations worked.
    TF2 actually worked the second time, but the issues appeared when i wanted to quit - once i got to actually kill it, but then i got a kernel oops.
    None of these happens with the 13.6 beta driver.
    Simpler games such as Urban Terror and Half Life 1 engine games (via Steam) have no issues.

    I have a A8-5500 and i use Debian Testing 64-bit with kernel 3.10.4

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    290

    Default

    This is not an attack on anybody but a serious question.

    I see allot of people not having a dedicated graphics card, I can't understand why.

    It might change one day, but integrated graphics and games was never a good idea.

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gps4l View Post
    This is not an attack on anybody but a serious question.

    I see allot of people not having a dedicated graphics card, I can't understand why.

    It might change one day, but integrated graphics and games was never a good idea.
    Why is a bad idea if i may ask?
    I want to play Hl1/2 based Steam games, and open source games which run just fine on my A8-5500. I dont need another card to suck more power when i have what i need.

    PS. The 7560D is very stable with every version of fglrx since 13.1 (the first driver i installed on this rig), only this driver achieved the performance of locking up the computer.
    Also, previously i had a nvidia 8200 (which is much slower than the 7560D) and that was ok too for lesser games like Urban Terror (i even played LOTRO on it via Wine).

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    290

    Default

    Of course you may ask.

    Modern games like crysis 3, bring even high end pc's with a dedicated vid card to its knees.
    And they don’t have to share some system resources.

    In every benchmark I have seen so far, the integrated graphics perform less then almost every dedicated vid card.
    Even the cheaper ones.

    Maybe we think about different games.

    But if we look at Serious Sam 3, even my hd 5750 with 1 gig of ram, can't handle it with every setting to the max.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,988

    Default

    Ah, but the sharing is actually becoming an advantage. With one memory space, a texture upload turns from a slow copy to an instant operation.

    The current high-end APUs already exceed low-end discrete of the same generation, only bottlenecked by RAM. This was sidestepped by Sony in the PS4, and will be fixed in main APUs with the introduction of DDR4.


    By then it's only the power and cooling that give discrete cards an advantage - an APU will easily match a high-end card, leaving only the power-guzzling Titans of 300+ W TDP to surpass them.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    290

    Default

    I have no idea how good this stress test is for benchmarking.
    I used the video stress test of half Life 2 lost cost.

    Both at 1680 x 1250

    OpenSUSE 12.3 64 bit vs W 7 pro 32 bit
    OpenGL vs probably Direct X

    188 - 236 fps.

    On openSUSE used latest openGL 4.3 beta driver.

    On windows it looks a bit more fluent, but it does not stutter on openSUSE.

    AMD phenom II X4 3.2 ghz 4 gig of ram HD 5750 1 gig of ram.
    Last edited by Gps4l; 07-30-2013 at 07:09 PM.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Ah, but the sharing is actually becoming an advantage. With one memory space, a texture upload turns from a slow copy to an instant operation.

    The current high-end APUs already exceed low-end discrete of the same generation, only bottlenecked by RAM. This was sidestepped by Sony in the PS4, and will be fixed in main APUs with the introduction of DDR4.


    By then it's only the power and cooling that give discrete cards an advantage - an APU will easily match a high-end card, leaving only the power-guzzling Titans of 300+ W TDP to surpass them.
    I am skeptical about this, but would of course not mind.

    http://nl.hardware.info/productinfo/...:specificaties

    GDDR5 memory.

    As far as I understand it, should they not use DDR5 ?

Posting Permissions

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