Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nouveau Driver Remains Much Slower Than NVIDIA's Official Driver

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
    Nonsense, Windows 8 has the official driver from AMD bundled in for all Radeon cards, including the legacy ones. This has been the case since Windows 7.



    Only difference is that Microsoft does not bundle the Catalyst software with the driver.

    Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
    Stop complaining. At least you have a choice. AMD dropped support for 2000/3000/4000 series and I have a 3400. So I have to use the open source radeon driver. Which has baaaad performance. It sucks so much that I cannot even have a fluid desktop let alone anything 3d game. Anything open source graphics driver sucks horribly on linux. And the more you hurl insults at either AMD or Nvidia the less proprietary support you'll get. And that hurts linux. BRING ME PROPRIETARY BLOBS!!! NOW! DON'T LISTEN TO THESE IDIOTS NVIDIA OR AMD!!!

    Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
    glxinfo | grep OpenGL:

    OpenGL vendor string: X.Org
    OpenGL renderer string: Gallium 0.4 on AMD RV620
    OpenGL version string: 2.1 Mesa 9.0
    OpenGL shading language version string: 1.30
    OpenGL extensions:

    Had none of those problems using the proprietary driver to answer your question.

    I have a laptop. Can't change anything in it except memory. If there was no open source drivers maybe AMD wouldn't have let go of the proprietary driver for my card. What do you mean that open source perform better? They are much worse than the proprietary blob. I could play nexuiz very well on 12.04 but on 12.10 I get around 20 fps.
    Bo$$ or/and Sonadow, you have two identical laptops - donate one to radeon developer or pay them. You have EOL hardware from official manufacturer standpoint. Microsoft is not doing drivers, its just packaging them, and receiving top priority due to bribes, NDAs and 99% x86 hardware preinstalls since MS-DOS.

    Also, windows is closed source. Its full of NDAs. Opensource and closed source do not exist together easily (unless its call-girl BSD, with result = proprietary).
    In order to achieve same level of integration, manufacturers should spend at least same amount of resources, which they don't do.
    It would be a lot easier for proprietary to integrate, if Linux were proprietary, but that would mean every Linux developer will have to sign NDA, which is likewise impossible, as Linux chances to survive along and in case being itself proprietary OS.
    So, no NDA possible, manufacturers do not target Linux for the same market(I am not speaking about community), they do not dump same amount of cash on development and ignore your opinion.

    Your behavior is like swearing on David for being no match to Goliaph, while silently enoying buttseks with the later.

    The open driver stack is showing 40-70% performance of the closed driver with OpenGL 3, and that only within several years of development.
    So, if you don't want to support the development (instead of crying like small babies), do whats acceptable for you. Along with consequences.

    And regarding this:
    Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
    And I also don't need to mention the hypocrisy displayed over the whole 'open-source makes everything cross-platform compatible' nonsense. Open source everything so that nobody has unfair advantages? So why are there people who are in favour of Linux-specific extensions made to key pieces of a Linux distribution stack (systemd is a very good example) that makes it completely incompatible with the BSDs? Or even the religious war that BSD is some devil which should be condemned just because Linux holds the lion's share of the alternative operating system market? By that logic the whole world, and not just AMD and Nvidia, can simply condemn Linux to death because Windows holds a 70% market share of mainstream desktop operating systems. People tout open systems and cross platform compatibility while trying to defend all actions that undermine BSD compatibility when major changes are made to the Linux software stack with claims that BSD is not relevant anymore because Linux's market share dwarves it (while conveniently forgetting that Windows crushes Linux and OS X combined in the desktop OS front). Hypocrisy at its finest, no?
    You are in no damn position to discuss the viewpoint and choices of the developers in question.
    If you are a developer - you are free to make your own.

    Lennard clearly stated that he has no intention to pull the train of legacy/compatible systems along.
    This is his way to concentrate development time to make Linux much more competitive to ... windows (yes) and apple. Was that your problem? Then who is hypocrite?

    When the technology is ripe enough, any system can port the stabilized changes back, because its opensource and nobody looses. Unlike the proprietary trash you seem to enjoy, which only works well on one OS.

    Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
    Any operating system that requires its users to be programmers and testers just to get their hardware workable has missed the point of what an operating system is supposed to be.
    Then enjoy your Nintendo Wii along with Mario.
    Last edited by crazycheese; 01-06-2013, 09:25 PM.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
      Any operating system that requires its users to be programmers and testers just to get their hardware workable has missed the point of what an operating system is supposed to be.
      While I agree with your point in general on topic of whole open source movement, wrt to drivers sometimes "guerilla way" is only right way.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
        Any operating system that requires its users to be programmers and testers just to get their hardware workable has missed the point of what an operating system is supposed to be.
        That all really depends on the target audience for the operating system. Linux and most open source efforts are about making the developers life easier and letting other contribute to the code not about how to make the end users life easier. It's a developers OS for developers. If they ever want to change that and have mass acceptance they then have to start putting what non-developer end users want and concentrate their efforts there. Right now I don't see a lot of effort trying to change that. It remains as it always has been, developers are #1, end users at the very bottom.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
          I am not necessarely saying that there is a conspiracy but the fact is that they break compatibility every month. And my question is why the hell do they make lives harder for driver manufacturers?
          Some people's life would be much easier if I could just stop living. That doesn't mean that my fundamental freedom is infringing on theirs.

          Just as manufacturers respond to market forces Xorg, Wayland etc are responging to free forces of open source. Free programs tend to appaer on places where they are needed and where conditions are favorable. Limiting one of their most fundamental principle ( freedom of change) would mean killing the project.

          Also, closed drivers show now and again that even if they can be useful solution for some purposes, they fail miserably across the board as one-size-fits-all solution.

          Since manufacturers can not predict all possible usefull roles for their product ( and even if they could , they don't care to) so they opt for least common denominator.

          Anyone outside that is basically screwed.

          This is why wee need that freedom. Even if we don't want to use particualr open source product, data and source on which is based enable us to roll our own...

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Brane215 View Post
            Limiting one of their most fundamental principle ( freedom of change) would mean killing the project.
            No it doesn't. Maintaining and ensuring ABI compatibility does not mean one has to sacrifice a project. It just means greater care and measures have to be taken to ensure backwards compatibility.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
              No it doesn't. Maintaining and ensuring ABI compatibility does not mean one has to sacrifice a project. It just means greater care and measures have to be taken to ensure backwards compatibility.
              If whole point of the project is freedom ofsource, then fixed ABI limits that freedom. If project developers are OK with that limit, fine. If not, then the limit is too restrictive and forking might be solution.

              With fixed ABI, how would things like Wayland ( or even mroe radical) be possible ?

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Brane215 View Post
                If whole point of the project is freedom ofsource, then fixed ABI limits that freedom. If project developers are OK with that limit, fine. If not, then the limit is too restrictive and forking might be solution.

                With fixed ABI, how would things like Wayland ( or even mroe radical) be possible ?
                There are plenty of ways but it requires effort to do so and means a lot more maintenance then the developers may wish to put in. The beautiful part of software development is that virtually anything can be done, it just requires the effort and know how to do it.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                  You have EOL hardware from official manufacturer standpoint.
                  That's because he has an ATI/AMD card which is 5 years old. If you go nvidia, their evil blobs still provide support for FX5200 - which is 10 years old. Ok, it's the last update for that nvidia card, but surely you can see the difference.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                    It's a developers OS for developers. If they ever want to change that and have mass acceptance they then have to start putting what non-developer end users want and concentrate their efforts there. Right now I don't see a lot of effort trying to change that. It remains as it always has been, developers are #1, end users at the very bottom.
                    I agree with your statement, but I think it's a sad reflection of the state of the Linux desktop. I am a developer, who chooses Linux as my primary platform because it is much nicer to develop on than the competition. But I don't develop for the kernel, Gnome/KDE, etc. I am an end-user for those components.

                    Developer and end-user are not mutually exclusive roles.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                      Actually Canonical focuses on the end users and are the most popular distro.
                      Canonical doesn't do much development at all. They market to the end user.

                      And something tells me that the rest tries to follow suit but when they fail they say that they don't care about the end user but the developer.
                      There are few distro's that are community ran and also let the community dictate the direction of the distro. For example:
                      https://features.opensuse.org/


                      I mean there are plenty of distros that focus on the end user because they want linux to gain mass acceptance (which is also the goal of linus torvalds from what I heard).
                      A lot of distros don't really do much in development but simply repackage. Most of your development work for linux comes from commercial entities that are not interested in the desktop market. For example: http://www.tuxradar.com/content/red-...-desktop-linux Instead they concentrate their development on where the money is which is big enterprise.

                      The reason devs are #1 is because of people like you who think that somehow linux doesn't want to be on all computers and use it as an excuse to not improve their software.
                      The number one reason is because the desktop market is far less profitable then the mobile/embedded/enterprise market and given their limited resources that is what they concentrate on for their development work.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by cbamber85 View Post
                        I agree with your statement, but I think it's a sad reflection of the state of the Linux desktop. I am a developer, who chooses Linux as my primary platform because it is much nicer to develop on than the competition. But I don't develop for the kernel, Gnome/KDE, etc. I am an end-user for those components.

                        Developer and end-user are not mutually exclusive roles.
                        They are not mutually exclusive that is correct. But being a developer you are more then likely willing to go through a lot more hoops to work with your system then the non developer crowd who don't care how it is done but just that it gets done.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                          Amen brother! I will use your quote everytime one of these open source zealots tries to tell me that it's my fault for the OS not working and that I have to write the drivers myself.
                          If you can write drivers same speed you can troll, go ahead.

                          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                          That all really depends on the target audience for the operating system. Linux and most open source efforts are about making the developers life easier and letting other contribute to the code not about how to make the end users life easier. It's a developers OS for developers. If they ever want to change that and have mass acceptance they then have to start putting what non-developer end users want and concentrate their efforts there. Right now I don't see a lot of effort trying to change that. It remains as it always has been, developers are #1, end users at the very bottom.
                          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                          They are not mutually exclusive that is correct. But being a developer you are more then likely willing to go through a lot more hoops to work with your system then the non developer crowd who don't care how it is done but just that it gets done.
                          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                          Canonical doesn't do much development at all. They market to the end user.
                          Here you go, you answered own question. The solution is: distributions with matching philosophy for different standpoints.
                          Canonical did introduce many end-user interesting projects: software center (much more comfortable to find and discuss software), jockey (to autofetch drivers), automatic Xorg restarts (to eliminate "CLI suprise" in case of bad drivers), upstart (before systemd was born), networkmanager (this is clearly userfriendly) early adoption of PulseAudio (with funny effects).

                          They do develop much less inkernel, but they do work on integration and desktop consistency. And they have not misused their lead/semi-lead position to prevent other distributions to profit from their efforts, as of today.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                            Canonical did introduce many end-user interesting projects: software center (much more comfortable to find and discuss software), jockey (to autofetch drivers), automatic Xorg restarts (to eliminate "CLI suprise" in case of bad drivers), upstart (before systemd was born), networkmanager (this is clearly userfriendly) early adoption of PulseAudio (with funny effects).
                            software center --> their version of click and run nothing special I believe Mandriva also had there version as well. Networkmanager was Redhat and Pulse again was not developed by Ubuntu and when it was introduced brought A LOT of heartache.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by mirza View Post
                              It doesn't seem to be "much slower", rather "reasonably fast, but slower then proprietary". Regarding trolls above, stable OSS driver will be great, even if it is 10% slower (most people wouldn't notice) because it will be much more stable (tested by millions of people) which makes difference especially for older cards, that companies tend to ignore. Also, security can be reasonably checked, rechecked and fixed by experience kernel devs, closed binary code is simply potential security and maintenance problem. And last but not least, having ALL drivers in Kernel, eventually, will make life of developers lot easier, especially regarding refactoring of various APIs.
                              Some people said they've had issues with closed vendor driver. Fair enough, me too: an AMD c50 based netbook I bought was not properly supported for some time. However my succession of card for desktops (8800GT -> GTX260 -> GTX560 and much longer string of AMD up to an HD7970) were supported well and quickly by the vendors.

                              Last time I looked into it (maybe 6 months ago) the vendor's drivers were still untouchable for OpenGL feature support and execution speed compared to the open source drivers.

                              Even on 2D operations like redraw window contents during window resize, the open source drivers drag.

                              Using open source drivers I find that Firefox may not use hardware acceleration and is thus dog slow. Never had that problem with proprietary.

                              Having all drivers in kernel / refactoring: before I buy a new video card I check for vendor support for the new card for Linux. If the kernel devs refactor or otherwise improve the APIs or kernel internals then it is AMD or NV responsibility to support the new kernel. In any case, how often does a major kernel subsystem like graphics (or SCSI layer or network stack) get overhauled? Every five years? Longer?


                              Other people's comments:

                              (paraphrase) "too stupid to uninstall a driver": I am perfectly capable of removing Nouveau after an install. But it's a pain in the neck: the VESA driver will just not get used if I install proprietary driver, so why should I have to mess with blacklisting the nouveau module? It's as if someone does not want me to disable it. It's not as bad now as it was when it first showed up, I guess some zealots at e.g. Fedora got half the message.

                              FPS & game consoles: I use PCs & Linux professionally, I play shoot 'em up games on Windows. I do not think consoles offer a compelling value proposition.

                              "trolls": I reject you out of hand. My comments about open source AMD/NV video drivers are perfectly valid.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by hoohoo View Post
                                (paraphrase) "too stupid to uninstall a driver": I am perfectly capable of removing Nouveau after an install. But it's a pain in the neck: the VESA driver will just not get used if I install proprietary driver, so why should I have to mess with blacklisting the nouveau module? It's as if someone does not want me to disable it. It's not as bad now as it was when it first showed up, I guess some zealots at e.g. Fedora got half the message.
                                Someone tried to make that all easier with a trivial patch but some developers got their panties all bunched up.

                                http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...item&px=NjYwMw

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X