Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UBO+TBO Support Comes To Radeon R600 Gallium3D

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

  • UBO+TBO Support Comes To Radeon R600 Gallium3D

    Phoronix: UBO+TBO Support Comes To Radeon R600 Gallium3D

    David Airlie recently published UBO and TBO patches for Gallium3D that allowed the Softpipe driver to work with the OpenGL Uniform Buffer Object and Texture Buffer Object features. Airlie has now worked on AMD's R600 Gallium3D driver to support these OpenGL 3.x features as part of GLSL 1.40 support...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTI1NDQ

  • #2
    Radeon got lots of work lately

    The Radeon driver has gotten lots of work lately from AMD and Marek.
    It seems to be advancing quite nice lately.

    Maybe soon it can be good and actually run games and work sweet?
    And be fast and all that and run latest games too...

    Too bad Nvidia isn't as open as AMD.
    Too bad Nouvou driver doesn't get as much love.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by uid313 View Post
      Maybe soon it can be good and actually run games and work sweet?
      What are you trying to do with it that doesn't already work?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
        What are you trying to do with it that doesn't already work?
        I don't know.
        I haven't tried it.
        I got a Nvidia card and have stayed away from AMD cards because of poor drivers.
        I've heard that AMD drivers really suck.
        But lately, I've read lots of news about improvements to the AMD driver.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by uid313 View Post
          I don't know.
          I haven't tried it.
          I got a Nvidia card and have stayed away from AMD cards because of poor drivers.
          I've heard that AMD drivers really suck.
          But lately, I've read lots of news about improvements to the AMD driver.
          I haven't had a single crash in months (could be years already ), kwin with compositing works without problems and I can play TF2 and other games just fine (even with kwin compositing enabled). For me it has everything I need.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by droste View Post
            I haven't had a single crash in months (could be years already ), kwin with compositing works without problems and I can play TF2 and other games just fine (even with kwin compositing enabled). For me it has everything I need.
            Are you using open source or proprietary drivers?
            If its open source, then thats pretty cool you can play Source engine games on open source.
            What graphics card do you have?

            I wonder if you can play newer games too.
            Also wonder how open source Radeon performs against proprietary Catalyst.

            Comment


            • #7
              Yeah, the funny thing about it is that I have a Radeon HD 4890 card (so it can only run fglrx Legacy now). The latest game that I bought, Expeditions: Conquistador that uses Unity 4 (I'm a beta tester), actually runs faster when using r600g than when using fglrx. It's still a bit slow at times, but then it's also a bit slow in the same places on Windows as well. I have no clue how that works, but it's amazing. And I'm not even using the latest Mesa release (although I am using some extra tweaked settings in xorg.conf.d). Of course, it's a circumstantial case, but I find it mighty impressive.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                I don't know.
                I haven't tried it.
                I got a Nvidia card and have stayed away from AMD cards because of poor drivers.
                I've heard that AMD drivers really suck.
                But lately, I've read lots of news about improvements to the AMD driver.
                It's funny, because it seems like most of the people claiming it sucks are like you - nvidia users who haven't even tried the AMD driver because they've heard it sucks so much.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                  Are you using open source or proprietary drivers?
                  If its open source, then thats pretty cool you can play Source engine games on open source.
                  What graphics card do you have?
                  open source driver with a radeon HD5770:
                  OpenGL vendor string: X.Org
                  OpenGL renderer string: Gallium 0.4 on AMD JUNIPER
                  OpenGL version string: 3.0 Mesa 9.1-devel (git-f842c60)
                  OpenGL shading language version string: 1.30

                  Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                  I wonder if you can play newer games too.
                  Also wonder how open source Radeon performs against proprietary Catalyst.
                  Besides TF2 I don't own really demanding/new games, just some stuff from a few humble indie bundles. But they all work.

                  /edit:
                  Last time I tried Catalyst it was faster but less stable. But this was in 2010 or something like that. I switched to the open source driver completely and since then and haven't had any major problems. Just that it's less fast and power management is a manual task I have a plasma widget for power management (switching from low to high profile when playing demanding games).
                  Last edited by droste; 12-16-2012, 05:37 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                    It's funny, because it seems like most of the people claiming it sucks are like you - nvidia users who haven't even tried the AMD driver because they've heard it sucks so much.
                    I've used both and pretty much agree with him on the drivers. :|

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                      I've heard that AMD drivers really suck.
                      "I've heard <ignorant, half-baked, over-generalized statement>."
                      There seems to be a lot of that going around the internet...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DanL View Post
                        "I've heard <ignorant, half-baked, over-generalized statement>."
                        There seems to be a lot of that going around the internet...

                        Its not that they have bad quality nor the open nor the closed. Its just that AMD solution Card+Driver doesn't even start some first rate games via Wine. Catalyst+HD2000-HD6000 doesn't start Tera_Online and shows multiple D3D errors, wile every nVidia Cuda card works fine with the closed drivers. Even Intel has better shape final solution than AMD. I prefer the open Intel cards that behave like 0.35(FMAC)-0.5(MADD)tflops Radeons and they play many more things. Also Nvidia its the best for gamers (i will not buy closed card again tho), and their compilers offloading many parts on the GPU and have static shader compiling support to, so they are faster and more compatible.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                          Expeditions: Conquistador that uses Unity 4 (I'm a beta tester), actually runs faster when using r600g than when using fglrx. It's still a bit slow at times, but then it's also a bit slow in the same places on Windows as well. I have no clue how that works, but it's amazing. And I'm not even using the latest Mesa release (although I am using some extra tweaked settings in xorg.conf.d). Of course, it's a circumstantial case, but I find it mighty impressive.
                          Yes, the open source AMD drivers ultimately get better than fglrx.

                          1. The power management of the open source driver is better in that with fglrx on my ATI Mobility X700 (r300g), if I'm plugged into power then the GPU goes into "High performance" mode and doesn't give an option to be bumped down into power savings mode unless I unplug the power cable. This is true in both Windows and Linux. With the open source drivers, I can have the system always boot the GPU into power savings mode and then later I can manually bump it into high performance whenever I want, regardless of whether I'm on battery or not. Love it. This gives a lot of control over how hot my laptop gets when I'm on battery or plugged into power. So I have a lot more control over the "power profile" of the GPU.

                          2. WebGL was never supported or runnable by fglrx on my hardware. The ancient fglrx driver for R300 hardware is blacklisted by web browsers that run WebGL due to complete system lockups. The AMD open source graphics drivers support it.

                          3. Some humble bundle games would lock the whole PC up when playing while using the 6 year old fglrx driver which is the latest fglrx driver for my hardware.. Except for missing MSAA, the games run just fine on the r300g open source driver.

                          4. The AMD open source drivers' 2D acceleration in web browsers is far better than the fglrx driver. When I run my GPU in power savings mode with fglrx, scrolling through webpages like Engadget with tons of large photos is a bit choppy.. Using the open source drivers, it's as smooth as silk and still has the advantage of power savings.. It's pretty impressive.

                          5. Same thing is true in 2D accelerated file managers such as Dolphin that do thumbnail previews. Folders with thousands of photo previews, scrolling is smooth as silk.. With fglrx, it's not unless I run my GPU in high performance mode which seriously cuts battery life and adds heat.

                          Things the r300g graphics driver doesn't have compared to the 6 year old fglrx:
                          1. Somehow still missing about 15% of 3D performance in games. (Yes, I've tried S3TC and HyperZ, still doesn't account for it)
                          2. No MSAA support.

                          I'm not really complaining though.. The 5 points above more than makes up for the 2 points below.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sidicas View Post
                            Yes, the open source AMD drivers ultimately get better than fglrx.

                            1. The power management of the open source driver is better in that with fglrx on my ATI Mobility X700 (r300g), if I'm plugged into power then the GPU goes into "High performance" mode and doesn't give an option to be bumped down into power savings mode unless I unplug the power cable. This is true in both Windows and Linux. With the open source drivers, I can have the system always boot the GPU into power savings mode and then later I can manually bump it into high performance whenever I want, regardless of whether I'm on battery or not. Love it. This gives a lot of control over how hot my laptop gets when I'm on battery or plugged into power. So I have a lot more control over the "power profile" of the GPU.

                            2. WebGL was never supported or runnable by fglrx on my hardware. The ancient fglrx driver for R300 hardware is blacklisted by web browsers that run WebGL due to complete system lockups. The AMD open source graphics drivers support it.

                            3. Some humble bundle games would lock the whole PC up when playing while using the 6 year old fglrx driver which is the latest fglrx driver for my hardware.. Except for missing MSAA, the games run just fine on the r300g open source driver.

                            4. The AMD open source drivers' 2D acceleration in web browsers is far better than the fglrx driver. When I run my GPU in power savings mode with fglrx, scrolling through webpages like Engadget with tons of large photos is a bit choppy.. Using the open source drivers, it's as smooth as silk and still has the advantage of power savings.. It's pretty impressive.

                            5. Same thing is true in 2D accelerated file managers such as Dolphin that do thumbnail previews. Folders with thousands of photo previews, scrolling is smooth as silk.. With fglrx, it's not unless I run my GPU in high performance mode which seriously cuts battery life and adds heat.

                            Things the r300g graphics driver doesn't have compared to the 6 year old fglrx:
                            1. Somehow still missing about 15% of 3D performance in games. (Yes, I've tried S3TC and HyperZ, still doesn't account for it)
                            2. No MSAA support.

                            I'm not really complaining though.. The 5 points above more than makes up for the 2 points below.
                            Yes damn right! But on the other hand R300g is the "golden age" hd2000-hd4000 isn't that fun. Maybe in 1-2 years.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Sidicas View Post
                              Yes, the open source AMD drivers ultimately get better than fglrx.

                              1. The power management of the open source driver is better in that with fglrx on my ATI Mobility X700 (r300g), if I'm plugged into power then the GPU goes into "High performance" mode and doesn't give an option to be bumped down into power savings mode unless I unplug the power cable. This is true in both Windows and Linux. With the open source drivers, I can have the system always boot the GPU into power savings mode and then later I can manually bump it into high performance whenever I want, regardless of whether I'm on battery or not. Love it. This gives a lot of control over how hot my laptop gets when I'm on battery or plugged into power. So I have a lot more control over the "power profile" of the GPU.
                              For me, this works out quiet nice lately. I use a Plugable docking station via USB with an external monitor (DisplayLink).
                              The open driver is programmed to use he highest memory clock if an external monitor is connected to DVI, with the DisplayLink (Fedora uses the fbdev driver) it behaves as if there is no external monitor.
                              The problem, with a very low memory clock (<=150MHz with low profile), the pictures on the external monitor lag a little and get a little corrupted from time to time. For example scrolling a website in Firefox, parts of the screen might overlap.

                              What I really wait for, is the time when we can tell it which clockspeed to use manually. Then I would put the memory clock on half speed and the gpu clock maybe 1/4 or so

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X