Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2013: A Good Year For Open-Source AMD?

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Great news. I'm taking this as official confirmation direct from AMD that he's currently working on h.264 support and it will be available to end users soon.

    Don't disappoint me
    yo don't understand the Bridgman rhetoric he work on h.264 he also work on a UVD solution but this does not mean they release anything.
    if he do not find a way to protect the DRM/Copyprotection in his solution there will be no release for "UVD3" they already drooped the work for UVD1 and UVD2....
    but he will work on h.264 support after that to because the hd7970 do have a complete new video "engine" then they will try it for that hardware generation to.

    the HDMI case show that the internal work @ AMD can FAIL! they worked on a opensource solution and after the legal check they dropped it.

    and in my point of view they will fail for the UVD unit.

    so the real target is the "VCE" video unit.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by RussianNeuroMancer View Post
      I doesn't see this anywhere, but I hope to see UVD support soon too.
      the possibility for UVD1 support is by ZERO! also UVD2 is dropped they try it for UVD3 but i don't think so...

      in the end you will get "VCE" support. don't bet on UVD ...

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
        yo don't understand the Bridgman rhetoric he work on h.264 he also work on a UVD solution but this does not mean they release anything.
        The original post said they wouldn't release anything, and then bridgman said that was wrong.

        I don't think there's any rhetoric there, although obviously they could change their plans I suppose.

        Edit: I guess it said "in the coming years", and obviously I would be pretty disappointed if it really takes years.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
          The original post said they wouldn't release anything, and then bridgman said that was wrong.

          I don't think there's any rhetoric there, although obviously they could change their plans I suppose.

          Edit: I guess it said "in the coming years", and obviously I would be pretty disappointed if it really takes years.
          "I don't think there's any rhetoric there, "

          LOL you are wrong the rhetoric is: the difference between working on it and RELEASE something.

          bridgman is right he works on IT but this means NOTHING! because they don't Release like the HDMI sound stuff.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
            Great news. I'm taking this as official confirmation direct from AMD that he's currently working on h.264 support and it will be available to end users soon.
            The opposite of "nothing" is not "everything"; you are taking the most optimistic possible interpretation of what I said, which can lead to disappointment.

            Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
            And then he got hired by AMD and now they pay him to work on something else...
            Most of the work Christian has done since he started at AMD has been related to video decode, both with shaders and with UVD. He started with shaders, but switched to UVD when the shader work proved to be less than promising (which we discussed here several months ago). The issue was that the decode work

            EDIT - where did the rest of my post go ?

            OK, short version -- as posted here a couple of times before, shader work turned out not as well as hoped because the parts we could accelerate on GPU had already been implemented pretty efficiently on x86 SIMD instructions, so Christian switched to working on UVD. We don't know yet if we will be able to release the code, but Christian and others are looking into ways to make that possible.
            Last edited by bridgman; 06-06-2012, 07:09 AM.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by bridgman View Post
              We don't know yet if we will be able to release the code, but Christian and others are looking into ways to make that possible.
              Like I said: "you can forget about H.264 support (whether it be UVD or shader approach) in the open drivers for the coming years.".

              Btw. This is not an interpretation of your words, but my experience in general. When there is no clear timetable and the only thing communicated is something like "we don't know when", it's either not going to happen or it's going to take a very long time.

              So I stand by my words: "you can forget about H.264 support (whether it be UVD or shader approach) in the open drivers for the coming years."

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
                So I stand by my words: "you can forget about H.264 support (whether it be UVD or shader approach) in the open drivers for the coming years."
                I guess... if you're just saying "I am knowingly taking the most pessimistic range of interpretations" then that's fair, and I have been very clear that people making buying decisions should not assume UVD support in the open driver yet.

                On the other hand, pretty much everything with the open drivers so far has faced similar challenges and an awful lot of things *have* happened, so I think saying unequivocally that something is *not* going to happen is just as misleading.

                My main objection with your previous post was not those words, however, but the (incorrect) statement that Christian had only done work on video decode before starting at AMD and that we had stopped him from working on that and shifted him to other tasks, along with the other conclusions you based on that statement.
                Last edited by bridgman; 06-06-2012, 07:41 AM.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                  I guess... if you're just saying "I am knowingly taking the most pessimistic range of interpretations" then that's fair, and I have been very clear that people making buying decisions should not assume UVD support in the open driver yet.

                  On the other hand, pretty much everything with the open drivers so far has faced similar challenges and an awful lot of things *have* happened, so I think saying unequivocally that something is *not* going to happen is just as misleading.
                  But that's different. AMD has always been very secretive about UVD. How long did it take before we could use UVD with closed source Catalyst? Years no?

                  My main objection with your previous post was not those words, however, but the (incorrect) statement that Christian had only done work on video decode before starting at AMD and that we had stopped him from working on that and shifted him to other tasks, along with the other conclusions you based on that statement.
                  Is he working on video decode right now? Full time? I don't think so. Of course you're in a better position to know than me. But from what I can see from the internets it seems he's working on compute support?

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
                    So I stand by my words: "you can forget about H.264 support (whether it be UVD or shader approach) in the open drivers for the coming years."
                    years? there are already hardware with the new video engine if the UVD will not work then the next gen video acceleration unit.

                    and this is not Years away... i bet on the beginning of 2013!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                      The opposite of "nothing" is not "everything";
                      Well, actually, it is. If anything in his post was correct, then saying "nothing" was correct was false.

                      But I was being a little tongue-in-cheek to begin with.

                      OK, short version -- as posted here a couple of times before, shader work turned out not as well as hoped because the parts we could accelerate on GPU had already been implemented pretty efficiently on x86 SIMD instructions, so Christian switched to working on UVD.
                      I'm a little surprised you didn't see this coming ahead of time. Years and years ago AMD put out marketing info that the bits of h.264 that couldn't be accelerated on shaders were good for 50% of decoding time. It was part of the reason they created UVD in the first place.
                      Last edited by smitty3268; 06-06-2012, 09:44 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Wait I don't get it, may be this can be explained to me. Actually you are saying that you bind the power of this developer to work on features that possibly will never be released due to license issues? Wouldn't it make much more sense to let this developer work on things that still have known issues/are unsupported, but can be released? And may be let him work on what he is doing now when your legal department has done its job to find out if you can release that work?
                        I mean, you yourself stated that manpower is not a resource that you have a vast amount of, so why are you wasting it?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TobiSGD View Post
                          may be let him work on what he is doing now when your legal department has done its job to find out if you can release that work?
                          I mean, you yourself stated that manpower is not a resource that you have a vast amount of, so why are you wasting it?
                          The legal guys look at his code and decide whether it can be released - if nobody works on UVD then they will never have anything to review, so nothing could ever be released.

                          Another reason to work on it is that people are asking for it.

                          Comment


                          • Correct. Typically we also need to modify the code a few times before it can be released, so no code = no progress towards release. In some cases we are able to get a yes/no before doing any work, but for more complex blocks that is usually not the case.

                            Note that the review is really more by technical leads across the company than by legal -- the model is more like "legal figures out what acceptable risk is and establishes guidelines for the project, technical leads figure out what the specific risks are, then if B < A we release". It's not really that simple but you get the idea.

                            In the specific case of UVD, what we said (and did) was postpone any significant work until we had mostly caught up with the introduction of new hardware and had initial support in place for the APU parts, ie for the first few years of the project. At that point we felt it was worth diverting some developer time to work on decode acceleration, with the knowledge that we might not be able to release the results of that work, because video decode was considered so important by our users.

                            There are good arguments for and against this, obviously, depending on where video decode sits on your personal list of priorities. I suspect that roughly half our users felt we started too late and the other half felt we started too early.
                            Last edited by bridgman; 06-06-2012, 11:32 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by TobiSGD View Post
                              Wait I don't get it, may be this can be explained to me. Actually you are saying that you bind the power of this developer to work on features that possibly will never be released due to license issues? Wouldn't it make much more sense to let this developer work on things that still have known issues/are unsupported, but can be released? And may be let him work on what he is doing now when your legal department has done its job to find out if you can release that work?
                              I mean, you yourself stated that manpower is not a resource that you have a vast amount of, so why are you wasting it?
                              "to license issues?"

                              no its not a license issue its a DRM/Copyprotection issue

                              and the shader based solution is not efficiency because an efficiency shader based solution need the stars micro controller inside of the UVD unit to reduce the overheat to the CPU.

                              " so why are you wasting it?"

                              LOL i asked the same question to "bridgman" -->why are you wasting our rare resources ?

                              but the answer is: the customers ask for this feature so they try to work on these wishes.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X