Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Releases Open-Source UVD Video Support

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Deathsimple View Post
    Thx for the reminder, changing the page right now. Edit: Ok not changing this, cause I can't remember my password for it (and the register server seems to be down).
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    I tried too, but seems my wiki account has been removed, along with many others (all who are listed with hostnames/IPs/???s in the changelog instead of account names. Likely a casualty of the spam cleanups.
    OK, so it's not just me being brain-dead and forgetting my password. Whew

    I tried to update the page last night but couldn't get in either.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by r_a_trip View Post
      I, for one, choose to use AMD based systems. If it does what I need it to do, why not use AMD kit? Also, Intel needs competiton to keep them honest and pushing innovation.
      Intel burns your AMD system twofold. There is simply no competition.
      So you will have to replace radeon with catalyst, forget about everything opensource and enjoy lovely bugs.

      I choose Intel three times already, no regrets. Opensource the way its meant to be!

      If AMD wants to compete with Intel, it would need
      a) to hire 20-30 engineers dedicated to opensource driver that will actually start adding features instead of backporting them or accepting outside patches (what Intel calls "Intel Opensource Technology Center").
      b) release power management documentation god damn it
      c) fix poor 3D performance

      Thats above is "if AMD wants", because Intel already has it covered.

      Originally posted by newwen View Post
      One more reason to support AMD and buy AMD graphic cards instead of Nvidia.
      You buy their cards to use it with pathetic driver, knowing that they actually only support catalyst which is pathetic closed source compared to closed source nvidia?
      If you are opensource supporter, buy Intel. If you are not - buy nvidia.
      Last edited by brosis; 04-03-2013, 09:27 AM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by r_a_trip View Post
        I, for one, choose to use AMD based systems. If it does what I need it to do, why not use AMD kit? Also, Intel needs competiton to keep them honest and pushing innovation.
        Not to mention, the "M" in "650M" is for "Mobile".
        Also important to consider is the fact that the 650M has been on the market for *over a year* and is being compared to something that is *not yet available*. So OMGWOW, intel will soon be able to perform kinda sorta almost as good with their **TOP END** chip as LAST YEAR's nvidia *MIDDLE OF THE ROAD MOBILE* chip.

        Also, its being spanked severely by AMD.
        http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/up...ns-at-CES1.jpg

        Note that those results are REAL results on the HD4000 and 5800k, INTEL's CLAIM on the GT3 -- quite literally "twice" HD4000, and AMD's CLAIM on the 6800k. You can note that they're not even claiming to be CLOSE to the 5800k.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by bridgman View Post
          OK, so it's not just me being brain-dead and forgetting my password. Whew

          I tried to update the page last night but couldn't get in either.
          All the wiki accounts were disabled during the spam overload on fdo. You have to request your account be restored manually now.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
            Not to mention, the "M" in "650M" is for "Mobile".
            Also important to consider is the fact that the 650M has been on the market for *over a year* and is being compared to something that is *not yet available*. So OMGWOW, intel will soon be able to perform kinda sorta almost as good with their **TOP END** chip as LAST YEAR's nvidia *MIDDLE OF THE ROAD MOBILE* chip.

            Also, its being spanked severely by AMD.
            http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/up...ns-at-CES1.jpg

            Note that those results are REAL results on the HD4000 and 5800k, INTEL's CLAIM on the GT3 -- quite literally "twice" HD4000, and AMD's CLAIM on the 6800k. You can note that they're not even claiming to be CLOSE to the 5800k.
            You sure you compared your AMD chip using opensource drivers? Or was that on windows?
            Because AMD APU chips perform 5% of performance (as in twenty times slower) with opensource driver; and Intel chips perform 95% with opensource driver.
            Last edited by brosis; 04-03-2013, 09:44 AM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by brosis View Post
              Intel burns your AMD system twofold. There is simply no competition.
              At least not once the koolaid has been consumed, as you obviously have.

              So you will have to replace radeon with catalyst, forget about everything opensource and enjoy lovely bugs.
              Why would anybody possibly want to use catalyst??? Radeon performs close (and in some cases *ahead*) of catalyst, and supports everything that catalyst does.

              I choose Intel three times already, no regrets. Opensource the way its meant to be!
              Are you possibly confusing AMD with nvidia??? I choose AMD ***because of open source***.

              If AMD wants to compete with Intel, it would need
              a) to hire 20-30 engineers dedicated to opensource driver that will actually start adding features instead of backporting them or accepting outside patches (what Intel calls "Intel Opensource Technology Center").
              Ok, so you want to REALLY MURDERFY intel then? LOL.

              b) release power management documentation god damn it
              That would be helpful, but you can control power consumption quite easily already.

              c) fix poor 3D performance
              ... uh, right. That poor 3D performance that is already WAY WAY better than intel, and "right up there" with nvidia blobs?

              Thats above is "if AMD wants", because Intel already has it covered.
              AMD is basically ahead of intel in ALL of your "wants".

              You buy their cards to use it with pathetic driver, knowing that they actually only support catalyst which is pathetic closed source compared to closed source nvidia?
              If you are opensource supporter, buy Intel. If you are not - buy nvidia.
              If you are an opensource supporter, buy AMD. AMD open source stuff actually works. Too bad you drank the koolaid.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by brosis View Post
                You sure you compared your AMD chip using opensource drivers? Or was that on windows?
                Because AMD APU chips perform 5% of performance (as in twenty times slower) with opensource driver; and Intel chips perform 95% with opensource driver.
                That's absurd. The open source drivers are very close to the blobs. You're way behind the times.

                Also, there's no such thing as "twenty times slower". "times" means multiply. You can't multiply "slowness".

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                  That's absurd. The open source drivers are very close to the blobs. You're way behind the times.

                  Also, there's no such thing as "twenty times slower". "times" means multiply. You can't multiply "slowness".

                  They are in very few scenarios. In more cases then not they are usually much slower then their blob counterparts.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                    They are in very few scenarios. In more cases then not they are usually much slower then their blob counterparts.
                    *marginally*, not "much". There are some cases where the oss driver is AHEAD of the blob.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                      That's absurd. The open source drivers are very close to the blobs. You're way behind the times.
                      No - APUs are definitely a lot slower. "Very close to the blobs" is very much a hyperbole, and only true with certain GPUs and few 3D applications. But on APUs the gap is even bigger, compared to desktop GPUs. The most serious problem is that APUs can't be reclocked to their full clock, and so by means of clock speed they are limited to ~40% of their actual performance level.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by brent View Post
                        No - APUs are definitely a lot slower. "Very close to the blobs" is very much a hyperbole, and only true with certain GPUs and few 3D applications. But on APUs the gap is even bigger, compared to desktop GPUs. The most serious problem is that APUs can't be reclocked to their full clock, and so by means of clock speed they are limited to ~40% of their actual performance level.
                        That is complete and utter nonsense.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                          That is complete and utter nonsense.
                          Nice arguments you got there.

                          APUs can only use a low default clock because thermal management isn't implemented and just ignoring that could possibly overheat the poor APU. I'm pretty sure bridgman will confirm that for you. IIRC he (or Alex?) also noted that in some post on these forums.

                          Edit:
                          For instance, the E450 APU has multiple power states: 173 MHz, 200 MHz (default), 275 MHz, 504 MHz and 600 MHz (boost state). But the radeon open source driver will not go over the default clock of 200 MHz to make sure the APU will never exceed thermal limits. That's just 30% of the maximum clock (or 40% if you don't count the boost state)!

                          The relevant part of the driver is right here:
                          http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source...m.c?v=3.8#L167
                          Last edited by brent; 04-03-2013, 10:21 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by brent View Post
                            Nice arguments you got there.

                            APUs can only use a low default clock because thermal management isn't implemented and just ignoring that could possibly overheat the poor APU. I'm pretty sure bridgman will confirm that for you. IIRC he (or Alex?) also noted that in some post on these forums.
                            As an APU user I would like confirmation too.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                              At least not once the koolaid has been consumed, as you obviously have.


                              Why would anybody possibly want to use catalyst??? Radeon performs close (and in some cases *ahead*) of catalyst, and supports everything that catalyst does.


                              Are you possibly confusing AMD with nvidia??? I choose AMD ***because of open source***.


                              Ok, so you want to REALLY MURDERFY intel then? LOL.


                              That would be helpful, but you can control power consumption quite easily already.


                              ... uh, right. That poor 3D performance that is already WAY WAY better than intel, and "right up there" with nvidia blobs?


                              AMD is basically ahead of intel in ALL of your "wants".


                              If you are an opensource supporter, buy AMD. AMD open source stuff actually works. Too bad you drank the koolaid.



                              The first that matters is Wine behavior. There is not a reason to buy an extra GPU for non gaming purposes, i will prefer a cheap integrated. To this field Nvidia has the first place with a quality closed driver, wile AMD has the fourth place, after Intel with open driver and probably even Imagination(Atom). So if you are a hardcore gamer you need extreme single thread performance(Intel AVX or at least SSE4.2, OC) and an Nvidia_64bit GPU(even a small one 96-384 cores). If you not, you will buy from a contributor to MESA, for now there is only Intel. There is not a single reason for anything else. And a safe conclusion is: The first GPU vendor that will support native HLSL compilers with their Linux driver, wins probably for ever. They must give as the power to run MS-D3D via Wine without GLSL translation, natively. This means that they must give an HLSL compiler target back-end with the Linux driver, plus an recognition front-end for HLSL if needed. If they don't we must start to thing our own solution before an open HLSL compiler: We can extract the missing driver parts from the Windows drivers via Winetricks, and let MS-D3D see them (with some small Wine code).

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by artivision View Post
                                The first that matters is Wine behavior. There is not a reason to buy an extra GPU for non gaming purposes, i will prefer a cheap integrated. To this field Nvidia has the first place with a quality closed driver, wile AMD has the fourth place, after Intel with open driver and probably even Imagination(Atom). So if you are a hardcore gamer you need extreme single thread performance(Intel AVX or at least SSE4.2, OC) and an Nvidia_64bit GPU(even a small one 96-384 cores). If you not, you will buy from a contributor to MESA, for now there is only Intel. There is not a single reason for anything else. And a safe conclusion is: The first GPU vendor that will support native HLSL compilers with their Linux driver, wins probably for ever. They must give as the power to run MS-D3D via Wine without GLSL translation, natively. This means that they must give an HLSL compiler target back-end with the Linux driver, plus an recognition front-end for HLSL if needed. If they don't we must start to thing our own solution before an open HLSL compiler: We can extract the missing driver parts from the Windows drivers via Winetricks, and let MS-D3D see them (with some small Wine code).
                                Wine doesn't even work. Certainly isn't worth even one second's consideration.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X