Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rich Geldreich: A Bad Catalyst GL Driver Is Bad For Everyone

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

  • Rich Geldreich: A Bad Catalyst GL Driver Is Bad For Everyone

    Phoronix: Rich Geldreich: A Bad Catalyst GL Driver Is Bad For Everyone

    Rich Geldreich, the former Valve OpenGL developer that left the company and has been publicly expressing the poor OpenGL driver landscape, has another new post out today...

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

  • #2
    I thought people in the forums were more quick to judge the validity of the test programme itself as being very nVidia biased (especially since it's theres), therefore making a nVidia v Anybody else comparison moot.

    And then every article thereafter pointing this comparison out is also, therefore, moot.

    Or am I missing something?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by stiiixy View Post
      I thought people in the forums were more quick to judge the validity of the test programme itself as being very nVidia biased (especially since it's theres), therefore making a nVidia v Anybody else comparison moot.

      And then every article thereafter pointing this comparison out is also, therefore, moot.

      Or am I missing something?
      yes, you are. NV extensions were only used in tests where only nvidia was tested. other tests only use ARB

      Comment


      • #4
        another clickbait ?

        Anyway Rich Geldreich is a nice name if you translate English/German the proper words ... It would make a good avatar for a paid poster :-)))))

        So basicaly the test tells us that NV has the best GL4.2+ implementation (or is 4.4 needed for all the ARB extensions?). Now that Intel is well behind in GL4+ and makes up the most of the GPUs used, the test is not relevant to anything byt high-end gamers.

        Also plese can this be run on the last and current-gen consoles just for comparison ? Oh can't, last-gent does not support GL4+ ....

        Basically we are talking about evaluating the best implementation of the latest standard in an industry area that does not care about the latest standard (the largest player does not support it).

        I do however agree with the conclusion that the AMD results are a disaster for all of us.

        Comment


        • #5
          What nVidia says with this test is: "Look brothers, i am fast here" . That is OK, but that means nothing for the other implementation . Rich is right, no OpenGL driver is as fast as other driver in the same place and that is true. Devs just needs reliable API which fast & reliable on most vendor implementation, common thing as they can target majority of people with no problem, etc... so they want just that to be easy and easy supportible for them, with not so much vendor diversity included .

          With this test and nVidia's ""Look brothers, i am fast here" and "Do you see that, you can do it as well" , it is more and more understandible to me why AMD want to do Mantle on their own .

          Graphics Mafia, OS Mafia... yeah Richie boy you are right . How many drivers Linux has..."5000 drivers maybe" why that many for one normal computing needs , maybe we just need dictator like Linus for the graphics - diversity is normal thing .

          Comment


          • #6
            Wow, the comments here are so silly, it is almost sad.

            Some Nvidia dude writes some demo code for GDC14 Approaching Zero Driver Overhead presentation, to show what is actually possible with modern OpenGL, talking about x15 speedups in some cases.

            Some other dude from Aspyr Media makes this demo run on Linux, and tests how well it performs with other GPUs. He finds that AZOD only really works with Nvidia hardware, because other vendors don't give a damn about performance (or anything else) it seems.

            So it must be Nvidias fault. What the fsck is wrong with you?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by log0 View Post
              Wow, the comments here are so silly, it is almost sad.

              Some Nvidia dude wdrites some demo code for GDC14 Approaching Zero Driver Overhead presentation, to show what is actually possible with modern OpenGL using AMD spearheaded extensions, talking about x15 speedups in some cases.

              Some other dude from Aspyr Media makes this demo run on Linux, and tests how well it performs with other GPUs. He finds that AZOD only really works with Nvidia hardware, because other vendors don't give a damn about performance (or anything else) it seems.

              So it must be Nvidias fault. What the fsck is wrong with you?
              Here, fixed that for You.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by przemoli View Post
                Here, fixed that for You.
                Who cares if AMD spearheaded them? Their spear is blunt, and nvidia's is sharp. Everyone is criticizing OpenGL, and the conclusion is: modern OpenGL works *BECAUSE* nvidia exists. Others may be "working towards" or may be "spearheading stuff" but if you want decent OpenGL in 2014, nvidia is your only option.

                I'd like it very much if it wasn't like this. It's hard to find nice small laptops with nvidia chips. I'd like to be able to game a bit on my laptop. But unfortunately, AMD is not the answer.

                Comment


                • #9
                  NVIDIA only providing binary drivers is bad for everyone too.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Please drop Catalyst driver for Linux!!! And send all workers to r300, r600, radeonsi driver! Need petitions?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by stalkerg View Post
                      Please drop Catalyst driver for Linux!!! And send all workers to r300, r600, radeonsi driver! Need petitions?
                      There is no need for petition (r300 and better half of r600 cards are not even supported anymore by current Catalyst drivers ), also i expect they will drop Catalyst for r600 cards complitely somewhere next year .

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by brad0 View Post
                        NVIDIA only providing binary drivers is bad for everyone too.
                        This.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          First, this guy is a troll.
                          He said openly in a previous article that old OpenGL is flawed, and that he doesn't even consider new OpenGL to be a solution because the design focus of the new API is to make it to be used less often.
                          So, and old thing is flawed, but let's not look at the new thing that fixes all problems because I don't like how it has to be used now.

                          Now, the test.
                          The test is meant for comparing different algorithms using older/newer APIs, not for comparing different hardware.
                          It is meant to hint at developers how a future game/application must be programmed in OpenGL.
                          The test shows for every driver that there are some code paths that are definitely faster than others.

                          The problem in the article is that it has the results in a random order, like hinting to the viewer that what's compared is the hardware.
                          The test has "problems" and "solutions" and they are presented in the article all mixed up. Like, first "UntexturedObjects", then "TexturedQuadsProblem", then back to "UntexturedObjects", etc.

                          Also the impact of the driver overhead is exaggerated here. This is not comparing general performance of OpenGL across different vendors. It's called micro-benchmark for a reason.
                          This is only a small part of what matters for performance. It means that AMD could be very well into the "optimized enough" level for real applications when considering the big picture.




                          PS:
                          A small observation:
                          "UntexturedObjects GLDrawLoop" is ~29% faster than "UntexturedObjects GLUniform" for NVidia, but ~206% faster for AMD.
                          I guess this is just AMD not caring about optimizing old OpenGL and focusing more on the newer API.
                          Last edited by DeiF; 06-17-2014, 05:32 AM. Reason: small observation

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by [Knuckles] View Post
                            Others may be "working towards" or may be "spearheading stuff" but if you want decent OpenGL in 2014, nvidia is your only option.
                            Thats a reason against Nvidia then, not for opengl. and with that its a reason against opengl. If I have the choice between a "open" but also primary only implemented in proprietary drivers api for exclusivly unfree games (show me good free games that use opengl 4.4) and a highend-gaming hardware-vendor-independent api (direct3d/gl) that is os-exclusive, I will stick to the last.

                            For gaming then I always just use my windows pc for ever, I dont even care about steamos that much, because I dont see a big point into switching one propriatary os for another os which is also full of propriatery software even in the kernel with unfree modules for gaming.

                            And even if amd would magicly have tomorow the same speed on all opengl levels than nvidia has, opengl just sucks, its slower (no real game ever proofed that it can deliver the same huge performance improvements that mantle did generate), its api is garbage everybody asked aobut it just hates it, so lets hope amd releases the specs more or less soon of mantle and lets get rid of that opengl garbage at least for gaming.

                            And then yes maybe nvidia boykots then this api, but so can amd do with opengl, yes they will not completly ignore the standard or remove code that works already, but having huge performace differences between mantle and opengl nearly forces then engine/game developers to support both apis.

                            Of course intel could be the problem here, because they hate mantle because it allows gamers to not only consider 500,- Euro Core i7īs as fast enough for games. So we will see. on the other side they dont produce gpus that allow u to play high-end games. so does their cpu-market-share matter that much for what game developers choose as their target apis?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by dungeon View Post
                              There is no need for petition (r300 and better half of r600 cards are not even supported anymore by current Catalyst drivers ), also i expect they will drop Catalyst for r600 cards complitely somewhere next year .
                              I wrote about workers.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X