Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

r300/500 rant

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

  • #61
    While it's certainly nice to hear performance tuning happening, wasn't the goal to have it working before tuning?

    ie. have it working, in a stable release, would be more useful IMO. Then maybe more people would have a a chance at helping with the speed.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by curaga View Post
      While it's certainly nice to hear performance tuning happening, wasn't the goal to have it working before tuning?
      I think the driver becomes more stable than current r300c (the classic non-Gallium one).

      Originally posted by curaga View Post
      ie. have it working, in a stable release, would be more useful IMO. Then maybe more people would have a a chance at helping with the speed.
      Anyone is encouraged to help us out but that doesn't seem to happen. The only crucial thing missing is support for chipsets with no vertex processors (like ATI Xpress). Also, there seems to be no point in releasing it when it's about 4 times slower than the classic driver.

      -Marek

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Eosie View Post
        Also, there seems to be no point in releasing it when it's about 4 times slower than the classic driver.
        how did that happen by the way? One of the selling points of the G3D architecture was better performance, so where are the bottlenecks?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Eosie View Post
          Also, there seems to be no point in releasing it when it's about 4 times slower than the classic driver.
          Is the situation that "bad"?

          I hope Michael will present some test results about it soon.

          Comment


          • #65
            If everything works on supported chips, then why not release? Speed is not an issue if it's feature-complete.

            Yeah, I'm aware that you'd see benchmarks totally crushing it, but so what? I'll say it again that having a stable release is pretty crucial.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by curaga View Post
              If everything works on supported chips, then why not release? Speed is not an issue if it's feature-complete.

              Yeah, I'm aware that you'd see benchmarks totally crushing it, but so what? I'll say it again that having a stable release is pretty crucial.
              There won't be stable release until Mesa 7.8 comes out at least. I don't know if that's the plan or not though.

              So the Gallium driver might be stable right now, but since it's part of Mesa it needs to wait for Mesa to release.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by rohcQaH View Post
                how did that happen by the way? One of the selling points of the G3D architecture was better performance, so where are the bottlenecks?
                On one hand, you have code that has been in development for years (classic Mesa driver). On the other hand you have code that's been in development for months (G3D driver). No wonder the latter is slower at this point.

                Personally, I find it very impressive that GLSL 1.10 seems to be working already, with 1.20 being in the works. This means my code will be able to run on OSS drivers in the not-too-distant future, nice!

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by rohcQaH View Post
                  how did that happen by the way? One of the selling points of the G3D architecture was better performance, so where are the bottlenecks?
                  I don't think so. One of the selling points of G3D was easier driver development and maintenance, which is true. There is another level of abstraction between OpenGL and the driver and that *might* incur higher CPU (driver) overhead than the classic Mesa drivers have. We're yet to see where we can get.

                  Originally posted by curaga View Post
                  If everything works on supported chips, then why not release? Speed is not an issue if it's feature-complete.
                  Not so feature-complete, the support of ATI Xpress chipsets is missing. My bet is Mesa 7.9.

                  -Marek

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                    Personally, I find it very impressive that GLSL 1.10 seems to be working already, with 1.20 being in the works.
                    GLSL 1.2 is already in place. What's missing is support for code branching, loops, and partial derivatives instructions (from the top of my head).

                    -Marek

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      While using kernel modesetting, whenever I run certain games, like nexuiz or morrowind in Wine (only outdoor cells), I get massive corruption. Yet that corruption persists until I reboot my computer.

                      Here is what glxgears looks like after such an event.

                      http://embraceunity.com/?attachment_id=452

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        I couldn't get the link to work... there's a site but no picture

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                          I couldn't get the link to work... there's a site but no picture
                          Sorry about that.

                          http://embraceunity.com/wp-content/u...funkygears.png

                          It is a bit hard to see in the picture, but if you look closely there is a checkerboard effect.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by eosie
                            GLSL 1.2 is already in place. What's missing is support for code branching, loops, and partial derivatives instructions (from the top of my head).
                            Yep, that's why I said GLSL 1.2 is in the works (missing dynamic flow control). Derivatives are GLSL 1.3, I think.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              i dont like fglrx, i just don't like that chips that are supported by catalyst also receive open source attention.

                              it's wasted efforts; in deciding to drop support for pre r600 chips ati more or less made the open source driver their legacy option; you don't see nvidia putting efforts in getting their legacy drivers to support brand new cards ?!

                              its like i said before: you either drop all catalyst efforts on linux or you stop trying to develop two drivers to certain cards wasting ressources that could be focused on bringing your legacy option up to speed with what it's intended to provide.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Just to be clear, the original reasons for supporting open source driver development did not include legacy hardware support. The goals were (a) providing a great out-of-box experience for Linux users, and (b) empowering distros to provide integration and post-sale support to their customers. Not saying legacy support wasn't important, but there are a number of different ways to handle it and only some of those ways require open source drivers.

                                When support for the 3xx-5xx generation was dropped from fglrx we asked our developers to divert some time from the newest GPUs so that support for older GPUs could move ahead more quickly, and to fill some gaps such as power savings.

                                We did *not* redefine the open source graphics project to be "legacy only" and have no plans to do so in the future.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X