Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Radeon Gallium3D Starting To Out-Run Catalyst In Some Cases

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

  • #31
    THX open source radeon driver team !

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
      RadeonSI and Northern Islands comparison or this benchmark is useless.

      No sane person uses a 4xxx series on a desktop anymore. Except for old fogies who are too cheap to upgrade their hardware.
      ROFL. So which card would you suggest as replacement? In the case you didn't know, the 4850-70 can easily keep up with a 7750.

      If I was into conspiracy theories I'd even suspect that AMD is trying to kill the 48XX on purpose by dropping driver support, because it is so good even after 4 fsckin years.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by log0 View Post
        ROFL. So which card would you suggest as replacement? In the case you didn't know, the 4850-70 can easily keep up with a 7750.
        the HD 7970 x2, of course. And see how the open RadeonSI driver fails miserably.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
          the HD 7970 x2, of course. And see how the open RadeonSI driver fails miserably.
          And what do I need the 7970x2 for? E-penis comparisons with some teens? Sorry, I am out of that age. And the 4850 runs even recent games just fine.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by log0 View Post
            And the 4850 runs even recent games just fine.
            So by your logic the whole world should just stick to obsolete hardware like Intel's integrated GMA 950 graphics core because it's capable of running Windows 7's Aero, Windows 8's desktop effects, Compiz and the built-in compositors + desktop effects found in the latest versions of KDE and Gnome even though it's more than 5 years old.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
              So by your logic the whole world should just stick to obsolete hardware like Intel's integrated GMA 950 graphics core because it's capable of running Windows 7's Aero, Windows 8's desktop effects, Compiz and the built-in compositors + desktop effects found in the latest versions of KDE and Gnome even though it's more than 5 years old.
              So by your logic, the whole world should just buy new hardware when they do not actually need to?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by j2723 View Post
                So by your logic, the whole world should just buy new hardware when they do not actually need to?
                Yes.

                Because of obsolescence and EOL status.

                In fact, let's take it one step further. Why even upgrade your OS? Let's all stick with Ubuntu 7.04 and all other distros' equivalents at that level since nobody needs to use GTK3 and QT4 and the latest additions to the GCC compiler and the glibc / libstdc++ libraries. GTK2, QT3 and old versions of GCC and the C libraries can still compile most of today's open source software, so why bother upgrading to newer libraries that nobody needs?
                Last edited by Sonadow; 02-13-2013, 10:16 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                  Yes.

                  Because of obsolescence and EOL status.

                  In fact, let's take it one step further. Why even upgrade your OS? Let's all stick with Ubuntu 7.04 and all other distros' equivalents at that level since nobody needs to use GTK3 and QT4 and the latest additions to the GCC compiler and the glibc / glibc++ libraries.
                  Apples and Oranges.
                  Hardware costs money to upgrade, software upgrades are free.

                  I have nothing to lose when I upgrade my software (other than stability, in the worst case), I do however, lose money by upgrading my hardware, therefore I must first look to see if it is "worth" upgrading. If my "obsolete" hardware can do the work just fine, why should I waste my money.

                  EDIT:
                  By the way, the same thing can apply to proprietary software, take for instance Photoshop, why upgrade from CS4 to CS5 when CS4 can do everything you need to be able to do? I am mainly talking about FOSS, however.
                  Last edited by j2723; 02-13-2013, 10:23 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by j2723 View Post
                    Apples and Oranges.
                    Hardware costs money to upgrade, software upgrades are free.

                    I have nothing to lose when I upgrade my software (other than stability, in the worst case), I do however, lose money by upgrading my hardware, therefore I must first look to see if it is "worth" upgrading. If my "obsolete" hardware can do the work just fine, why should I waste my money?
                    And if 1 day all the Linux distros in the world decide to charge for software upgrades, it's curtains.

                    And software upgrades are never free. Red Hat charges for upgrades. Microsoft and Apple charge for upgrades. Oracle and IBM charge for upgrades. SAP charges for upgrades. So you telling me that server admins running Red Hat / Microsoft servers loaded with Oracle / IBM / SAP applications should never upgrade their systems because their software updates are not free.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                      So by your logic the whole world should just stick to obsolete hardware like Intel's integrated GMA 950 graphics core because it's capable of running Windows 7's Aero, Windows 8's desktop effects, Compiz and the built-in compositors + desktop effects found in the latest versions of KDE and Gnome even though it's more than 5 years old.
                      Nice attempt at trolling... We mention high-end HD3xxxx and HD4xxx are still perfectly capable and you compare this to GMA950, a far older low-end solution...

                      Just admit that you are wrong and everything you say is BS and just move on...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                        And if 1 day all the Linux distros in the world decide to charge for software upgrades, it's curtains.

                        And software upgrades are never free. Red Hat charges for upgrades. Microsoft and Apple charge for upgrades. Oracle and IBM charge for upgrades. SAP charges for upgrades. So you telling me that server admins running Red Hat / Microsoft servers loaded with Oracle / IBM / SAP applications should never upgrade their systems because their software updates are not free.
                        First you're talking about Desktop users, then you warp the subject to suit your argument. I am a Desktop user, and I do not care about Servers, nor do I care about proprietary software, because there are (in most cases) FOSS alternatives.

                        EDIT:
                        I highly doubt "1 day all the Linux distros in the world decide to charge for software upgrades", and if, then there will be forkage.
                        RHEL -> CentOS, one example.
                        Last edited by j2723; 02-13-2013, 10:38 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                          And if 1 day all the Linux distros in the world decide to charge for software upgrades, it's curtains.

                          And software upgrades are never free. Red Hat charges for upgrades. Microsoft and Apple charge for upgrades. Oracle and IBM charge for upgrades. SAP charges for upgrades. So you telling me that server admins running Red Hat / Microsoft servers loaded with Oracle / IBM / SAP applications should never upgrade their systems because their software updates are not free.
                          Trolling, astroturfing, or both?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                            So by your logic the whole world should just stick to obsolete hardware like Intel's integrated GMA 950 graphics core because it's capable of running Windows 7's Aero, Windows 8's desktop effects, Compiz and the built-in compositors + desktop effects found in the latest versions of KDE and Gnome even though it's more than 5 years old.
                            Reading comprehension issues? How is it obsolete when it can keep up with current hardware (ok, maybe not with your "mine is the largest" 7970x2, but who cares?). I am running latest shit with 1080p on it.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                              And if 1 day all the Linux distros in the world decide to charge for software upgrades, it's curtains.

                              And software upgrades are never free. Red Hat charges for upgrades. Microsoft and Apple charge for upgrades. Oracle and IBM charge for upgrades. SAP charges for upgrades. So you telling me that server admins running Red Hat / Microsoft servers loaded with Oracle / IBM / SAP applications should never upgrade their systems because their software updates are not free.
                              You must realize that your logic is flawed. The point is that when upgrading something costs money and reaps no or very small benefits in real world use, it ends up not being worth it to upgrade. If you think this is less true of server administrators than at home, then you don't know business server administrators.

                              In business you need to make a business case to spend money. With server software the possible reasons for doing that are useful features, more efficiency, security enhancements, avoiding end of life for software support, etc. Most of the time it means a case of spending less time doing more business (the old "time is money" adage). Sometimes it's about avoiding risk (security and support end of life issues fall into that category). New features that you won't use or benchmarks that mean nothing in real world usage don't cut it for reasons to upgrade in business.

                              In personal use upgrades are all about whether the difference you'll see is worth the money/effort you're going to spend to you personally. For some people, a better benchmark is worth it. In some cases, actual use cases make it worth it to someone. Some place more emphasis on games, 3-D modelling, or high resolution video processing; some people don't need those things.

                              Nobody is arguing that it's never worth it to upgrade, so your examples just end up being straw men. A GMA950 stinks for a number of purposes. It's almost always worth it to upgrade eventually, but there's no hard and fast rule about when.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                                And if 1 day all the Linux distros in the world decide to charge for software upgrades, it's curtains.

                                And software upgrades are never free. Red Hat charges for upgrades. Microsoft and Apple charge for upgrades. Oracle and IBM charge for upgrades. SAP charges for upgrades. So you telling me that server admins running Red Hat / Microsoft servers loaded with Oracle / IBM / SAP applications should never upgrade their systems because their software updates are not free.
                                One should charge for actual work, not for the sake of charging.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X