Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Has No Plans To Suspend Catalyst For Linux

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

  • AMD Has No Plans To Suspend Catalyst For Linux

    Phoronix: AMD Has No Plans To Suspend Catalyst For Linux

    Since AMD's decision to discontinue HD 2000/3000/4000 series support from the Catalyst driver plus other changes that upset some hardware owners, there's been some rumors that AMD may be discontinuing development of the Catalyst Linux driver and focus solely upon the open-source AMD Linux driver...

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

  • #2
    I do not see any source link in that article only links to phoronix? Where is the source? It would be unlogical to drop fglrx completely but who is Jammy Zhou and where did he say something?
    Last edited by Kano; 06-19-2012, 08:24 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      To clear up the rumors, Jammy Zhou of AMD said, "We will definitely continue the fglrx development, which is becoming more and more important for AMD."
      thats it, to say we continue it, because whatever ok, but to say that gets more important so in the conterpart the open one becomes less important (logical) is the nail, I will not go for amd anymore, if the hardware is not extremly more expensive for the same feature I will buy Intel hardware in the future.

      bb amd....

      Comment


      • #4
        I hope AMD does eliminate Catalyst

        Not now, of course.

        When the performance is better. Once more features are in place. Power management, perhaps.

        It's the logical endgame, anyways. Who really thinks AMD wants to keep up two different driver lines in perpetuity? It seems fairly clear to me that the long(really, the long long long long long) game is to one day have the OSS driver be the only one. They did port it to Windows, after all.

        Do you want Mesa updated almost instantly when OpenGL 4.6 is introduced? 5.2? (pick a number) It's much more likely that AMD will contribute to Mesa like Intel is doing if they're only tied into the OSS, and not into Catalyst as well.

        Realistically, years from now - The OSS driver should stand alone having deprecated Catalyst.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Kano View Post
          I do not see any source link in that article only links to phoronix? Where is the source? It would be unlogical to drop fglrx completely but who is Jammy Zhou and where did he say something?
          There is no source link to publicly cite.
          Michael Larabel
          http://www.michaellarabel.com/

          Comment


          • #6
            Where's the black magic hiding?

            I'm more curious about what kind of black magic of graphics driver development (science?) has not been revealed by now in white papers, verbally, subtle hints, etc. Surely the fast-path "trickery" for specific programs can't explain all the performance difference... Being this frustrated, I can only imagine the open source devs'.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
              thats it, to say we continue it, because whatever ok, but to say that gets more important so in the conterpart the open one becomes less important (logical) is the nail, I will not go for amd anymore, if the hardware is not extremly more expensive for the same feature I will buy Intel hardware in the future.

              bb amd....
              OK, I have to ask.. how can you possibly look at market trends and our own presentations (nobody seems to have commented on the open source plans discussed at AFDS yet, which is surprising) then conclude that "fglrx getting more important" means that the open source driver is becoming less important ? Did all the other OSes disappear from the market while I was travelling ?

              Originally posted by tsuru View Post
              I'm more curious about what kind of black magic of graphics driver development (science?) has not been revealed by now in white papers, verbally, subtle hints, etc. Surely the fast-path "trickery" for specific programs can't explain all the performance difference... Being this frustrated, I can only imagine the open source devs'.
              There isn't any black magic AFAIK, just lots of optimization work. The open source driver isn't at the point yet where per-application "tricks" are the best use of time -- that comes in somewhere around 80% average performance relative to Catalyst (roughly where the r300g driver is today). There is still lots of room for generic improvements, like the shader caching changes in the last couple of weeks and all the 2D tiling / HyperZ work being done now.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Michael View Post
                There is no source link to publicly cite.
                So no mention what so ever on how you obtained this quote? Why should we believe you? Something like "in an email to blah he mention" or "via phone interview person X said" would have sufficed. Glad to see you're working so hard at keeping phrononix a respectible news source that works hard to cite sources and provides external link for more info.

                On that note was there ever even a rumor that catalyst was gonna be dropped for linux? You would think that would be be news. Nope just another excuse for Michael to half ass an article about nothing.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                  (nobody seems to have commented on the open source plans discussed at AFDS yet, which is surprising)
                  What plans are those? Probably there are no comments about that because people are not aware of that to begin with...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Since AMD's decision to discontinue HD 2000/3000/4000 series support from the Catalyst driver...
                    For anyone who hasn't figured it out, ATI/AMD always drops support for relatively new GPU's after a couple years, often with the products still available for sale (look at Catalyst 8.28.8 and 9-3). It doesn't mean they're ending Catalyst. What it means is that you shouldn't be shocked when it happens and shouldn't whine/cry about how you're never buying AMD again.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                      What plans are those? Probably there are no comments about that because people are not aware of that to begin with...
                      I wasn't able to get out to AFDS this year so don't know the exact words Phil used (will try to find a video link tomorrow) but if you're familiar with FSA/HSA the announcement was basically about providing the full Linux execution stack (compiler/runtime/kernel drivers) in open source form, except for one commercial third party piece (the C++ parser front end). Slides and abbreviated transcript at :

                      http://www.slideshare.net/hsafoundat...m-architecture

                      Slide 30 IIRC. The presentation was basically a "heads up" for developers and ISVs. There was some media coverage but mostly summarized as "will also be available on Linux"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by tsuru View Post
                        I'm more curious about what kind of black magic of graphics driver development (science?) has not been revealed by now in white papers, verbally, subtle hints, etc. Surely the fast-path "trickery" for specific programs can't explain all the performance difference... Being this frustrated, I can only imagine the open source devs'.
                        I think a lot has to do with just managing memory/states better - every time the card flushes data to the CPU or vice versa it introduces a huge delay, and I think the proprietary drivers are just much smarter at minimizing the number of those that are required.

                        That's a tricky thing to optimize, because you have to look at the whole flow of how the driver is working, you can't just sit down and optimize 1 function or 1 file. In fact, a lot is probably tied into the cross-driver bits of Mesa rather than even 1 specific hardware driver.

                        I imagine that effects Intel much less since their GPU is sitting right on the die along with the CPU, and also because it is relatively much less powerful - which means delays are both shorter and less likely to be noticed in the first place.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                          nobody seems to have commented on the open source plans discussed at AFDS yet, which is surprising
                          I've also been waiting for at least a mention on phoronix front page. That was a mjor commitment end to mee sounded like at least OpenCL & stuff (HSA bolt) will fully be supported in open source under Linux, which, to me at least, sounds absolutely amazing! Of course it'll have to be because otherwise AMD APUs wouldn't be fully Linux compatible anymore, at least in the way it's meant to be (free and fully open - and what is Linux without this?), but still: Great news!

                          halfmanhalfamazing: First thing i thought when I read the headline (fglrx not being dropped) was what a pity That's because it's just not usable for me, hasn't been for years (e.g. [worst example:] switching video streams using xinelib just crashes X, always has, with FGLRX). So dump this useless sh*t and fully go for the radeon driver. Which is relatively slow, but stable. But of course I know that it takes some time before it can (potentially) completely take over.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'm sorry I will not be constructive but AMD should just stop make stupid decision kicking its user in the butt. And I talk by a OS-indipendent point of view. On my laptop I'm not able to update to windows 8, as far as I understand, couse they will not add support for new OSes. It is very logical to update a 1 year old pc to the lastest version of windows. Of course I'm not intrested, but the fact that I just can't because AMD likes to tag my 1 year old harware as legacy is just stupid! This is even more true for GNU/Linux of course given it is updated really more frequently.

                            In the end it doesn't really matter if AMD want to stop the development of fglrx given the problem is far upper in the Marketing team which has just shoot in its feet another time.

                            Sorry again for the rant, but this really pissed me off

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The support for ATI Radeon X1000 (R500) through Radeon HD 4000 series (R700) now lives in an AMD Catalyst legacy branch that may see updates once in a while.
                              So that means that R500 will eventually see a "legacy" update for the first time since Catalyst 9.3?
                              That would come really unexpected..

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X