Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KDE 4.10 KWin To Properly Support AMD Catalyst

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

  • KDE 4.10 KWin To Properly Support AMD Catalyst

    Phoronix: KDE 4.10 KWin To Properly Support AMD Catalyst

    KWin, KDE's compositing window manager, will better play with the AMD Catalyst binary blob in the KDE 4.10 release by enabling direct rendering and the OpenGL 2.x back-end for those using the latest Catalyst driver...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE2OTI

  • #2
    Martin Gräßlin, Thomas Lübking, and the other KWin devs rock. No other window manager comes close.
    Nice to see that AMD got OpenGL 2 working so soon. ;-p

    Comment


    • #3
      Direct rendering works only on KDE?

      Comment


      • #4
        A few days ago there was a KDE review request submitted by AMD's Jammy Zhou for white-listing the AMD Catalyst driver for KWin direct rendering.
        Why a application needs review request to use direct rendering with fglrx?

        Comment


        • #5
          2012 and AMD supports direct rendering.
          Haven't Nvidia supported direct rendering for years now?

          Either way, good to finally see it coming!

          By the way, does Kwin 4.10 work with Wayland?

          Comment


          • #6
            times ago they talked about openGL 3/4 support, where is it now? isn't openGL 2 old too?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by uid313 View Post
              2012 and AMD supports direct rendering.
              Haven't Nvidia supported direct rendering for years now?

              Either way, good to finally see it coming!

              By the way, does Kwin 4.10 work with Wayland?
              AMD has already been supporting direct rendering, but KWin couldn't use it for some reason.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by fabioamd87 View Post
                times ago they talked about openGL 3/4 support, where is it now? isn't openGL 2 old too?
                opengl is not directx meaning opengl 4 is not better or faster or cooler or pretiest than opengl 2, opengl 4 only provide extensions or improvements to support new techniques present in more recent hardware like tessalation for example.

                another thing is that opengl allows you to mix revisions[cuz mostly they are extensions] so the opengl 2 render engine can support FBO/VBO in dx9/10 class hardware for example and pbuffers for older hardware[not sure if dx8 class hardware can fully support FBO] and so on [ofc some features may require specific hardware or the use of especific extension from opengl X.x to work], in this case the important thing is support for opengl2 that allow you to use shaders, so later in time you can detect in runtime the GPU and add more capabilities present in that hardware or more complex/efficient shaders[<-- this is very simplified],etc.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well, that's kind of a funny situation. KWin now supports Catalyst. Catalyst no longer supports my graphics card. :\ Oh well, at least r600g is awesome.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by siride View Post
                    AMD has already been supporting direct rendering, but KWin couldn't use it for some reason.
                    TextureFromPixamp was buggy under direct rendering, which is why none of the desktop compositers worked with it.

                    Catalyst 12.6 was the release which fixed it.

                    Compiz - uses indirect rendering only
                    Gnome Shell - uses direct rendering only, which is why it was broken when you ran with fglrx
                    KWin - made it optional and defaulted fglrx to indirect rendering since it was broken otherwise

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
                      opengl is not directx meaning opengl 4 is not better or faster or cooler or pretiest than opengl 2, opengl 4 only provide extensions or improvements to support new techniques present in more recent hardware like tessalation for example.
                      You're wrong all over.
                      OpenGL 4 _is_ way better in pretty much every sense, it not only provides significantly more core GL & GLSL functionality than GL 2.1 but it's also cleaner and deprecates old stuff and provides new extensions. The difference between GL 4.3 & 4.2 is pretty big, between 4.3 & 2.1 it's simply astounding. It's also (much) easier to program for GL 4.x because of the much higher lowest common denominator.

                      And of course you get better performance with GL 4 than 2 because of the new ways you can do stuff (instanced drawing, compute shaders, new stages, etc etc) and you do it in a clean way, not having to "hope" that a given extension exists.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mark45 View Post
                        You're wrong all over.
                        OpenGL 4 _is_ way better in pretty much every sense, it not only provides significantly more core GL & GLSL functionality than GL 2.1 but it's also cleaner and deprecates old stuff and provides new extensions. The difference between GL 4.3 & 4.2 is pretty big, between 4.3 & 2.1 it's simply astounding. It's also (much) easier to program for GL 4.x because of the much higher lowest common denominator.

                        And of course you get better performance with GL 4 than 2 because of the new ways you can do stuff (instanced drawing, compute shaders, new stages, etc etc) and you do it in a clean way, not having to "hope" that a given extension exists.
                        jrch2k8 is right. All GL4 hardware exposes those extensions for GL2 too.

                        From a dev perspective, writing for pure gl4 is worse, because it requires more boilerplate, and has worse syntax. It's much better to do gl2 + extensions.

                        The hardware requirements box can still say "requires GL4" if you don't want to run without some GL4 feature. The end result is the same in that case, no matter whether you use gl2 + some gl4 extension vs gl4.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by curaga View Post
                          jrch2k8 is right. All GL4 hardware exposes those extensions for GL2 too.

                          From a dev perspective, writing for pure gl4 is worse, because it requires more boilerplate, and has worse syntax. It's much better to do gl2 + extensions.

                          The hardware requirements box can still say "requires GL4" if you don't want to run without some GL4 feature. The end result is the same in that case, no matter whether you use gl2 + some gl4 extension vs gl4.
                          Remind me not to take your posts for serious ever again. "Worse syntax" haha, it's amazing. I've done 3.3 and compared to 2.1 it's got way better and cleaner syntax, to me getting rid of long words like "attribute" and "varying" alone is worth the transition, not to mention all the goodies bla bla.

                          I still hear people ranting about how X.org is good and "no need to fix it" so it's no wonder that there also are people with their heads up their asses claiming GL 2 is better or equal to GL 4.

                          And yeah, by their logic GLES 3 is not better than GLES 2.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mark45 View Post
                            Remind me not to take your posts for serious ever again. "Worse syntax" haha, it's amazing. I've done 3.3 and compared to 2.1 it's got way better and cleaner syntax, to me getting rid of long words like "attribute" and "varying" alone is worth the transition, not to mention all the goodies bla bla.

                            I still hear people ranting about how X.org is good and "no need to fix it" so it's no wonder that there also are people with their heads up their asses claiming GL 2 is better or equal to GL 4.

                            And yeah, by their logic GLES 3 is not better than GLES 2.
                            nope you are misinterpreting the point and the syntax is very subjective issue some love it and some hate it like some love C and hate C++ ,etc so i won't enter in a religious war about syntaxes.

                            back to the point ill try to be more clear this time OpenGL is a collection of extensions per se not a unique release like DirectX which need you to link to each revision library[libgl vs d3d9_xx.dll d3d10_xx.dll d3d11_xx.dll] among other things to support various generation of hardware <-- i think up to here we both agree

                            now opengl versions are more like this "hey we got X number of new functions that require class X hardware among some a superset of agnostic features so lets name it profile X.y" and thanks to this you can mix all this new and previous extensions or just merry with a specific revision or only support a subset of revision, etc.

                            about performance what i said is still true, sure if i try to emulate tessalation on shaders via GL2/3.y instead of use the tessalation silicon present in dx11 class hardware using the respective 4.y profile is gonna be hell slower but this is not a OpenGL goodie or pit fall is a hardware dependant issue[dx11 is faster than dx10 hardware the same as dx9 hardware is slower than both] and the same is true for shading code since many of those cool functions introduced in gl4.3 like shader storage objects or compute shaders require silicon that is only present in DX11/.1 hardware[some can be partially emulated in previous generation but most likely will underperform beyond utility]

                            now you could say "but i tried 2.1 vs 4.3 in the same GPU and is still faster jajajaj !!!!" and it makes sense not cuz opengl 2 is slower than 4.3, this phenomenon is mostly cuz the new features are very optimized for the current silicon while the older ones[especially those that substitute functionality of extensions from previous releases] are emulated and hence much slower <-- again hardware dependant issue.

                            now the milestone of reach GL 2.1 for this specific case[kwin] is very very good because gl1.x was mostly fixed functions only and really annoying to be GPU efficient or flexible but gl2.1 is widely used and introduced the use of shaders[properly as used today].<-- my previous point

                            now the wonderful thing about opengl is that i can at runtime level detect the hardware and properly decide which shaders compile or which fixes function can improve performance or readiness for the GPU installed <--- curaga point so you can efficiently suppot many gpu generations exploiting properly every generation goodness without penalty[for example use FBO/PBO in my 4850 and pbuffers in my GFx5600 or use STO in my amd 7700]

                            now is stupid to develop an application like kwin that only support gl4.3 profile and reject everything else LOL you need DX11 class hardware for that[1% or less than kde users], so not gonna happen, what you can do is contribute gl4.3 profile code to kwin so it get faster in you dx11 but still work fine in my dx10 hardware

                            i hope is more clear now

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
                              nope you .. bla bla bla..i hope is more clear now
                              GL 4 is (much) better than GL 2. Period. The fact that it is better to target GL 2 is not because it's better (it's much worse) - but because its market share is much larger.

                              Don't confuse market share with the quality of the technology itself, anything starts with a zero market share, and don't give the "anything is subjective" semantic bullshit.

                              If GL 2 is better or equal to the newer GL versions then AMD, Intel and Nvidia (and other) devs are idiots because they're putting a lot of work into supporting newer versions. Tell them about this since you're such a smartass.
                              Last edited by mark45; 08-27-2012, 05:24 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X