Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Is Still Moving Towards A Unified Open-Source Driver

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by dungeon View Post
    Which is great, Catalyst users will never complain again that there is no kernel support in time nor need to compile module
    But you are now forced to use a bleeding edge kernel for newer cards.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
      Mesa's catching up because AMD Developers are coding for it.
      Can you Link some of the big changes in mesa from AMD? I read mostly only that Intel has implement feature xyz and the other free drivers catch up this features.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by peppercats View Post
        there's absolutely zero reason to keep catalyst closed source when mesa is catching up so fast, at this point it has to just be a duplication of effort
        Linux and OpenGL is obvious not AMDs Main Target.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Nille View Post
          But you are now forced to use a bleeding edge kernel for newer cards.
          Mostly yes if it will be just like current radeon, but we don't know yet for sure how unified driver will behave... it is not there yet

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
            Nobody at this point would develop any game or engine which has 4.4 as the minimum version.
            Actually all hardware that supports OpenGL 3.3 supports OpenGL up to 4.4 with proprietary drivers from AMD, Nvidia and Intel(on Windows for now). Something that doesn't support it is realy old hardware already and in 2017 not many gamers will have such and even OSS drivers will have support of it. So if someone would like to create modern and powerful engine that it should be ok. Ofcourse "powerful" engine doesn't sound nice when you have 1 developer but its his choice anyway.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by sunweb View Post
              Actually all hardware that supports OpenGL 3.3 supports OpenGL up to 4.4 with proprietary drivers from AMD, Nvidia and Intel(on Windows for now). Something that doesn't support it is realy old hardware already and in 2017 not many gamers will have such and even OSS drivers will have support of it. So if someone would like to create modern and powerful engine that it should be ok. Ofcourse "powerful" engine doesn't sound nice when you have 1 developer but its his choice anyway.
              Support-ish, some parts of newer OpenGL don't need hardware support, but a lot of it does. It might report OGL 4.4, but if the hardware physically isn't there, there is no magic in the proprietary drivers that will be better than software rasterization.

              The debate is a little silly, though. If you spend $8M dollars developing a game, most of that will be graphics artists. You can afford to pay a dev for 6 months to produce "a lower quality graphics engine" that will work on Windows Vista era graphics cards (== OpenGL 3.3). If that is pushing your budget, realistically you'll not support Linux long before you don't support people on Windows XP...

              Comment


              • #27
                Reason for wanting OpenGL 4.4 is AZDO.

                But here is the catch... If You do not need tesselation? Mesa will have AZDO faster then OpenGL 4.4

                After all AZDO is "just" a bunch of extensions, and Mesa is famous for cherry picking which ext. gets support next

                So OpenGL 3.3 + few extra extensions should do the trick (Or 4.0 + few extensions if tessel is necessary!)


                "I MUSTA HAVEA 4.4" is relict of monolithic proprietary drivers, where company politics dictate gradual development (no 4.4 before 4.3 is finished, no 4.3 before 4.2 is finished, and oh that hw wont get 3.2 .. because!)
                And "I MUST HAVEA Compatibility Profile" is another sad example.

                (Thankfully, Mesa allow for overriding both supported version and supported profile... And then some software just magically start to work :P )

                Comment


                • #28
                  That IS a solution for AMD GPUs. Lets se...

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Nice idea, but...

                    Nice idea, but ideally I can wish them not to stop half way and consider opensource driver as primary target at Linux, just as Intel did. But still, nice idea since it is kernel module what is attrubuted to most Linux troubles.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by bibaheu View Post
                      This might bring CrossFire to Mesa... Imagine "CrossFire" with totally different GPUs using Mesa, it would totally rock.
                      I seriously hope this means crossfire support. I just installed catalyst for the first time in about year yesterday and crossfire currently only works on the Heaven benchmark, and even at that it performs horribly. Crossfire is the only reason I switched to catalyst in the first place, and the lack of crossfire is the one thing preventing me from playing some games at 60+FPS at high(er) detail settings.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X