Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Radeon Power Management Still An Incomplete Mess

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

  • #16
    I also switched to Intel thanks to Ivy (not great on paper to be polite, but very decent on LInux "with no proprietary kernel module" in practice). Looks like this was the right decision, ATI is really going nowhere.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Sidicas View Post
      I use rovclock to manually clock my graphics chip down at boot, and then I clock it up and set HYPERZ whenever I run a game.. I think it's actually *BETTER* than the AMD Catalyst drivers on Windows XP simply because the AMD Catalyst drivers on Windows XP *ALWAYS* ran the GPU at full clocks when the laptop was plugged into the wall.. So whenever my laptop was plugged into the wall, it was a lot hotter than on battery, but now I have a lot more control over it than I ever had in Windows.. So I don't complain..

      I've gotten my Mobility X700 all the way down to 100/150 from 350/350.. Anything less than 100/150 is unstable...
      You are probably actually using lower clocks than you think. The problem with rovclock is that it doesn't take into account the post dividers on the PLLs. So unless the post divider is set to 1, you are actually programing much lower clocks than you think. Additionally, many of the vram related registers changed between 1xx and newer generations so adjusting the mclk can be problematic on newer cards. For atom based cards (r4xx and newer), I'd recommend using the atom tables to adjust the clocks manually.

      Comment


      • #18
        Oh. Well. From my personal pov:

        More than a year ago my old Sapphire HD 3870 (Ultimate ed.) was doing during idle periods
        about 75 W (whole computer w. 4850e CPU, HDDs, some USB, PCI cards, ... without screen) "from the wall" with (Gentoo) Linux (dunno which kernel) and fglrx.
        80 W in Windows (NT 5.1 aka XP) w. Catalyst
        85 W free driver stack (not sure if I had KMS at that time, otherwise same Gentoo installation).
        So fglrx in Linux was best, 5 W more in Windows, and another 5W more with free drivers. Not super shiny for the free drivers and visible difference but not screaming bad.

        With just the onboard HD3300 the difference was less visible (all around 45-50W or something).

        I should really measure stuff today again with my HD 5670, again Sapphire. But iirc. the difference last time I tried was not so much. Same mainboard still with a mediocre DSDT and stuff (MSFT compiled).
        So I think it actually got better, but to be exact I would have to find my old 3870 and compare again. (The 6xxx series was out already but I chose the 5xxx series since I knew it was better supported at that time.)

        But then, I have a dedicated card, from a vendor that normally sticks close to the AMD-ATI reference design. (And with my poor user-only-knowledge) I guess a lot of problems might also come from vendors doing their own tweaks and modifications, especially on laptops. Then any default mechanisms might not get a good grip so you need a lot of quirks in the drivers.

        At least here on Phoronix I rarely see anybody complain about missing OpenCL features but daily requests about power management and video accelearation issues (UVD/shaders). So maybe the AMD-ATI devs reading here should note to their superiors that these things and some 3d performance improvements seem to be a really pressing point among users. To give that more priority.

        About the lack of coders: I wish I could code. Then I'd like to spend some time on that stuff. But I decided to study chemistry instead of informatics / coding. And now I am partially even working on weekends on my PhD stuff, revising student's lab protocols and revising proposals for scholarships from foreign students and whatsnot. :/
        So no chances for me to get into coding rand contributing.

        All I can do is to spend some beer, cola or Mate tea for devs to keep them in a good mood. ;-)

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Adarion View Post
          At least here on Phoronix I rarely see anybody complain about missing OpenCL features but daily requests about power management and video accelearation issues (UVD/shaders). So maybe the AMD-ATI devs reading here should note to their superiors that these things and some 3d performance improvements seem to be a really pressing point among users. To give that more priority.
          Probably you don't see people complaining about OpenCl because the computer already does what is supposed to do (period). I mean it won't matter much if a computation takes a bit longer to complete for the average user. On the PM and VA things are different. ie. People see their batteries draining much earlier and CPUs hit 100% when playing Youtube videos hence you get more complains.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
            Probably you don't see people complaining about OpenCl because the computer already does what is supposed to do (period). I mean it won't matter much if a computation takes a bit longer to complete for the average user. On the PM and VA things are different. ie. People see their batteries draining much earlier and CPUs hit 100% when playing Youtube videos hence you get more complains.
            People that just want to watch youtube videos probably aren't running Linux. The percentage of Linux users that want fast OpenCL is actually pretty large. Most large scale Linux users are not consumers.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by agd5f View Post
              People that just want to watch youtube videos probably aren't running Linux. The percentage of Linux users that want fast OpenCL is actually pretty large. Most large scale Linux users are not consumers.
              I was (and probably Adarion) referring to the average joe linux user and not the corporate/large scale type.

              And i don't think the corporate/large scale care about open source OpenCL. They'll probably just use the blob and get their job done. And even the average joe will install a blob because he want's VA, Games, PM etc.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
                And i don't think the corporate/large scale care about open source OpenCL. They'll probably just use the blob and get their job done. And even the average joe will install a blob because he want's VA, Games, PM etc.
                They don't care about open source, true, but they care about hassle-free. Implementing OpenCL using Catalyst on a HPC architecture is a pain and you need to break some best practices to do it, like install a X-Server and make it permissive. I can only assume the open source driver would allow for a better solution.
                Still of course, Performance is king. If an open source driver wouldn't attain performance parity with the closed source solution, it wouldn't be used also on HPC no matter the security holes.

                On the other hand for office terminals the open source drivers are working great and hassle free.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
                  "Just release the code already, and arrange for anyone who tries to block it to find a new position where being an idiot is acceptable."

                  Thanks Dave!
                  That's nice. Now think back 5 years and wonder why ATI was more than keen to work with Dave than with us. We at SuSE were aiming too high (as in, reducing the relevance of fglrx) and we were asking too many nasty questions for ATIs liking (many of those ATI were simply incapable or unwilling to answer). We were getting blocked on so many sides by the end, not only by ATI, but also by supposed open source people. So I am still waiting to see that logic applied comprehensively, which in this case, includes the person quoted.

                  So stop complaining, Dave. You played a key role in reducing the set of requirements AMD had for ATI. Now go and sit on the blisters. (and before you try to complain; why don't you get back to me when more documentation than just the shader isa, released by the AMD gpgpu people, and not by the mess-formerly-known-as ATI, is being released again - as we at SuSE required)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by libv View Post
                    That's nice. Now think back 5 years and wonder why ATI was more than keen to work with Dave than with us. We at SuSE were aiming too high (as in, reducing the relevance of fglrx) and we were asking too many nasty questions for ATIs liking (many of those ATI were simply incapable or unwilling to answer). We were getting blocked on so many sides by the end, not only by ATI, but also by supposed open source people. So I am still waiting to see that logic applied comprehensively, which in this case, includes the person quoted.

                    So stop complaining, Dave. You played a key role in reducing the set of requirements AMD had for ATI. Now go and sit on the blisters. (and before you try to complain; why don't you get back to me when more documentation than just the shader isa, released by the AMD gpgpu people, and not by the mess-formerly-known-as ATI, is being released again - as we at SuSE required)
                    Just assigning blame won't help anyone. At the moment the whole situation here is escalating.
                    The reason for that is simple:

                    a) People don't trust bridgeman anymore
                    b) the uninformed users (me included) go on the nerves of the informed people
                    c) countless useless flames
                    d) the current situation between you two.

                    Might I therefore suggest the following strategy for de-escalation: Michael could setup a forum, where only X developers and people selected by them (bridgeman for example) have access and everybody else only gets read access.
                    I believe everyone of you has the same goal: To make the open driver better. The fragmented discussion in the current style will only make matters worse over time. In the single forum you can record your demands to AMD/ATI, bridgeman can answer and you can respond without people crying foul in between.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by tstrunk View Post
                      a) People don't trust bridgeman anymore
                      I don't think bridgman ever did something wrong. And for sure he never promised that they will release code (PM and UVD) for sure. He said they were investigating it. This and peoples hopes or desires are two different things.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
                        I don't think bridgman ever did something wrong. And for sure he never promised that they will release code (PM and UVD) for sure. He said they were investigating it. This and peoples hopes or desires are two different things.
                        I don't think so either. I also never said he promised something, I just said the normal users here don't trust him so much anymore. I feel for him, because I had to do a similar job once. I don't think it would be a good thing, if he quits. But read the thread until now and you will see what I mean. He gets flamed all the time and due to all the noise, you cannot really make out, when he really 'represented the company' or told the actual truth.

                        A separate forum without most of the people here would avoid all that flaming and still keep the masses entertained, because they would be informed.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I can only echo David Arlie's comments. I investigated the PM situation, read a lot of code and datasheets, with the goal of improving it on APUs. There's very, very little substantial information available (in code, extracted from mailing list posts or real documentation/datasheets) and it's hidden well. A lot of guessing, reverse engineering and trial and error is required, and debugging this stuff is *hard*. In other words, without documentation or a (quality) code drop, PM will never be fixed.

                          My problem with bridgman is that he has a tendency to justify the crazy decisions made by AMD and to downplay how bad the state of the drivers really is. And teasing people doesn't bode well either ("we have some PM code and we *might* release it").
                          Last edited by brent; 09-09-2012, 08:18 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I totally agree with Airlie. I have been an AMD customer for many years. I tried the open source radeon driver many times on different hardware (from r200 to r700) and the fglrx expirience was simply better (with all the problem it had!). AMD just have to wake up and begin a serious open source strategy. If AMD want to rely on the community it should be more open to collaboration. But the best solution is the intel one: set up a big open source center and start developing the driver all around. Not just the begin and from there to the community. This doesn't work if you don't collaborate more. And I want to be clear: nothing bad from the radeon AMD team. They are just amazing, always open to discuss and help. This problem is far upper then them, they just don't care about linux IMHO.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by brent View Post
                              My problem with bridgman is that he has a tendency to justify the crazy decisions made by AMD and to downplay how bad the state of the drivers really is. And teasing people doesn't bode well either ("we have some PM code and we *might* release it").
                              What is your problem? This exactly this is his job!

                              His job is to justify the Corporatism conspiracy against FOSS.

                              The Corporatism logic from ground up: The plan was always give away a small salami slice to the Social-Movement(FOSS) and the 99% of the big salami goes into the corrupt and anti-social Closed-Source bucket.

                              And the winner is: Commercial company’s like Microsoft/Apple and the loser is: FOSS

                              They do this game until the people get the point and stand up and fight for there rights in this case fight for FOSS. If they don't do this AMD will not chance there behaviour because they are very successful with there behaviour.

                              The FOSS people can only escape this trap if they buy hardware like: ARM or Loongson hardware. (its about market-share in the market section and compatibility to windows/macos)

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by tstrunk View Post
                                But read the thread until now and you will see what I mean. He gets flamed all the time and due to all the noise, you cannot really make out, when he really 'represented the company' or told the actual truth.
                                Apart from a few morons i don't thinks there is a problem with flaming. Most of the people understand that HW companies are just that. Organizations making money. Some are more "helpful" than others when it comes to FOSS but that doesn't mean that everyone in the management necessarily understand free and open or want to be free and open.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X