Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ATI R800 linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by PGHammer View Post
    10.10 is a *development/testing* distribution at present (it's not even due until October 2010 at the earliest; the beta is not even a week old), which is why Catalyst 10.8 won't (and shouldn't) support it.

    If you want closed-source driver support, then run 10.04.1 (which supports Catalyst back to 10.6 just fine); I won't run 10.10 *because* I have R8xx (Evergreen; Cedar in particular) and thus need the closed-source drivers.
    do you really think i don't know this all ?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
      do you really think i don't know this all ?
      Haha, you guys would make a good comedy team.

      ATI in Linux is a big sham. I wonder what kind of drugs makes you feel that way????

      People with their Windows boxes are already using their R800 cards... they do 3D, 2D, hardware acceleration etc. etc. Linux users with R800 cards are staring at their cards wondering what went wrong.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Panix View Post
        ATI in Linux is a big sham.
        I think that is a good way to look at it.

        The discrepancy, disparity between ATI drivers in Windows and drivers in Linux should be really looked at and analysed. Both open source and closed drivers for ATI in Linux has little investment, too little investment. I think this is apparent except for the fanatical zealots. The ideal is so great the reality clouds their thinking. I think Linux users should complain and be a loud voice. Probably nothing will be done but just taking it and thinking ATI is good because there's an open source driver won't change anything, imho.

        Anyway, just think about it.

        Comment


        • #34
          Loud voice is different from whining.

          In the Linux community, the loudest voices are found in git and svn commits. The drivers are open, anyone can help. That's how Linux works.

          If you can't help, you can sponsor a developer, file bug reports, bisecting, writing test cases, testing apps for compatibility, help with the wikis, help running the irc channels, helping other people with installation and bug reporting, package drivers for your favourite distribution, etc.

          If you insist on seeing Linux as a product, you will always be disappointed, because it simply is not, and will never be, a product. And that's why an open source driver changes EVERYTHING. It makes ATi hardware a first-class citizen in the Linux ecosystem. The performance is not great yet, but it works for most everyday tasks. The rest will have to evolve, like the Linux kernel evolved, like OpenOffice evolved, like Mozilla evolved. with time, it will happen.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Panix View Post
            People with their Windows boxes are already using their R800 cards... they do 3D, 2D, hardware acceleration etc. etc. Linux users with R800 cards are staring at their cards wondering what went wrong.
            The obvious answer being not having done any homework before buying

            Do you also want zero-day malware support?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
              The obvious answer being not having done any homework before buying

              Do you also want zero-day malware support?
              I don't know what you're talking about. Care to elaborate?

              I'm just saying that it's a real shame that there's not more resources invested towards Linux support on the ATI side, both with the closed blobs and open drivers.

              I've done tons of homework. Why do you think I'm stating this?

              I don't know if there's a number (%) value of how many features or functionality the fglrx drivers provide but it seems way too low, excessively disproportionate to Windows. At least, compared to Nvidia. Not that Nvidia has anything to boast about but it seems like a signfiicant difference. Not sure what your malware comment is about either. Maybe you didn't grasp my complaint or chose to overlook it?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                Loud voice is different from whining.

                In the Linux community, the loudest voices are found in git and svn commits. The drivers are open, anyone can help. That's how Linux works.

                If you can't help, you can sponsor a developer, file bug reports, bisecting, writing test cases, testing apps for compatibility, help with the wikis, help running the irc channels, helping other people with installation and bug reporting, package drivers for your favourite distribution, etc.

                If you insist on seeing Linux as a product, you will always be disappointed, because it simply is not, and will never be, a product. And that's why an open source driver changes EVERYTHING. It makes ATi hardware a first-class citizen in the Linux ecosystem. The performance is not great yet, but it works for most everyday tasks. The rest will have to evolve, like the Linux kernel evolved, like OpenOffice evolved, like Mozilla evolved. with time, it will happen.
                So, you want *me* (could be anyone) to help but AMD/ATI won't spare some change towards the projects? What's wrong with this picture????

                Comment


                • #38
                  But AMD is funding a huge number of developers (only 3 working on the OSS drivers, the rest on catalyst), and spending a lot of money on releasing documentation, etc.

                  Sure, I'd like them to drop a billion $ and hire 100 developers full-time to work on the OSS drivers, but this is unlikely. A couple of more developers would be great and doable, though, but it's hard to find people as capable as the ones they are currently employing. Bridgman, if you're reading this, hire a couple of developers now

                  I don't know why they're struggling to provide a stable binary driver, and it's a good question, but I guess that desktops are simply not their priority (workstations are).

                  At the same time, there is not reason why you (or anyone) could help. Marek is doing a great job, and MostAwesomeDude did lots of great work in the past. That's the best way to improve the (open) drivers.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    The OpenGL devision must be really small, because 10-7 had not working tesselation with Heaven and with 10-8 Heaven DX11 tesselation (normal) is 25% faster than Win OpenGL. As the Linux OpenGL variant is faster the Win group should fix some OpenGL speed issues too. Nv cards are not much different in speed when you use OpenGL on both plattforms (maybe in case of sli).

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Kano View Post
                      The OpenGL devision must be really small, because 10-7 had not working tesselation with Heaven and with 10-8 Heaven DX11 tesselation (normal) is 25% faster than Win OpenGL. As the Linux OpenGL variant is faster the Win group should fix some OpenGL speed issues too. Nv cards are not much different in speed when you use OpenGL on both plattforms (maybe in case of sli).
                      mybe the directX version do have ugly cheats?

                      and the openGL workstation users don't want fake FPS ==?=??=?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I told you even ATI Win OpenGL is slower than Linux OpenGL. For a shared source driver this is really weird. I can understand that DX11 is faster but no the huge difference between Win+Linux and OpenGL 4.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          OK, so let me get this straight. If OpenGL runs faster on Windows than on Linux we get blamed for ignoring Linux, right ? If OpenGL runs faster on Linux than on Windows then we're *still* doing something wrong ? Hello ? Would you be happier if we just ignored most of the Linux graphics environment and ran Windows code everywhere so you could get *exactly* the same frame rate on both OSes ?

                          The Linux graphics environment is *very* different from Windows. There are going to be differences in performance between the environments - some things will be faster, others slower. We can bring them closer by wiping out part of the Linux environment but I'm not convinced that is a Good Thing for the market.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            You usually would expect equal performance (well +/- 5%) using OpenGL. Buy a Nv card to see what i mean - single card config. When you get something different you must have a problem in your code. Or do you want to tell ppl that AMD is not even capable of doing correct Win drivers when Win rules the market share? Too funny. It is certainly NOT the case that AMD binary drivers are too optimizied for Linux as they always fail the KDE 4.4.5 function test and all those video/kernel/xorg issues...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Kano View Post
                              You usually would expect equal performance (well +/- 5%) using OpenGL. Buy a Nv card to see what i mean - single card config. When you get something different you must have a problem in your code. Or do you want to tell ppl that AMD is not even capable of doing correct Win drivers when Win rules the market share? Too funny. It is certainly NOT the case that AMD binary drivers are too optimizied for Linux as they always fail the KDE 4.4.5 function test and all those video/kernel/xorg issues...
                              Kano, isn't the ATI proprietary driver reusing more components in the Linux's graphics stack than the Nvidia driver? Could it be that, since more of the code path is preserved between Nvidia's Windows and Linux drivers, the resulting performance is more likely to be similar?

                              I always thought of the Nvidia driver as a parallel infrastructure, more of a black box than other approaches.

                              Say, could it be?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Nah, that explanation is too obvious to be true. It's because ATI sucks.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X