Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Why Mesa 9.2 Doesn't Work For All Linux Users

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,335

    Default Why Mesa 9.2 Doesn't Work For All Linux Users

    Phoronix: Why Mesa 9.2 Doesn't Work For All Linux Users

    While Mesa 9.2 has some performance improvements and many new features, this open-source 3D graphics library isn't cut for everyone...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ0MTM

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Why Mesa 9.2 Doesn't Work For All Linux Users

    While Mesa 9.2 has some performance improvements and many new features, this open-source 3D graphics library isn't cut for everyone...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ0MTM

    What you can do to help article with links pointing to a TODO or tasks page imminent.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    680

    Default

    Mentioning the version in the title is a bit confusing it makes it seam like 9.1 was better. A more correct title would have been: "Why Mesa Still Doesn't Work For All Linux Users".

    Also what non-mesa opengl software implementation has more features then LLVMpipe?

  4. #4

    Default

    Another day another whiny article. None of the OSS driver devs EVER said that the OSS drivers would ever be more then 60-80% of the performance of the closed source drivers due to all of the things that they can't release and don't have the man power to reverse engineer this decade.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kivada View Post
    Another day another whiny article. None of the OSS driver devs EVER said that the OSS drivers would ever be more then 60-80% of the performance of the closed source drivers due to all of the things that they can't release and don't have the man power to reverse engineer this decade.
    I think it's less of a "can't release" and more of a "lots of missing small and very situational optimizations/hacks" issue.
    I'm pretty sure there isn't much left to "reverse engineer" in the R600 stack. It's mostly tedious optimization work that needs to be done.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    118

    Post Don't forget

    Don't forget about this guy, he did crowd funding to implement KHR_debug. That's going to help push Mesa towards OpenGL 4.3, one less required feature to add. Here is his Github where you can follow his implementation. Implementing KHR_debug in Mesa 3D Graphics Library

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kivada View Post
    Another day another whiny article. None of the OSS driver devs EVER said that the OSS drivers would ever be more then 60-80% of the performance of the closed source drivers due to all of the things that they can't release and don't have the man power to reverse engineer this decade.
    Then the most we can expect is the performance of a 7850 when buying a 7950 ? I would rather use the closed source drivers even if they are not "pure".

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wargames View Post
    Then the most we can expect is the performance of a 7850 when buying a 7950 ? I would rather use the closed source drivers even if they are not "pure".
    Those estimates were averages, not "most you can expect". Nobody is saying "this is all you'll get", rather this was an estimate ~6 years ago based on what we expected to be do-able given the anticipated (at the time) size of community & AMD development efforts.

    I asked our architects what to expect assuming a simple shader compiler/translator and code size/complexity which could be both implemented and maintained by a small group of developers, which in turn meant that there would be relatively few "special case" optimizations. The estimate was 60-70% of Catalyst performance on average.

    Change any of those assumptions and you change the estimated performance, of course. Vadim and Marek have already "violated" a couple of assumptions, in a good way, and we have more AMD developers working on the driver than what we assumed in the initial estimate. The combination of llvm and GCN architecture should also help once we get past the learning curve (and AFAICS llvm has a big honkin' learning curve).
    Last edited by bridgman; 08-22-2013 at 09:51 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    680

    Default

    A few GPUs already runs faster with Radeon then Catalyst, at least for some situations.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    221

    Default fglrx or radeon?

    depends the situation, with a ati hd 4850 radeon is better solution if you don t need opengl 3.3 right now, with kernel 3.11 the things are good

Posting Permissions

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