ATI dropping support for <R600 - wtf!?

[Stormking]

Yeah, this is the heart of it. Your laptop. Designed for Windows, tested by the OEM on Windows, bugs fixed for Windows before shipment. Desktops are fairly generic and (with the exception of AGP and high memory) different users tend to see similar results. Laptops are much more heavily customized, and the reason they work so well with Windows is that all of the qualification and platform-specific driver code is worked out with the OEM before the laptop ships.

First of all, before I bought that damn thing, I checked every feature I wanted to use for the availability of linux drivers. I had positive experiences with NVIDIAs closed source drivers for linux. Not in a dream I would have thought that those of its direct competitioner ATI could be so crappy.

Then: I know that it is possible for my card to work under Linux. All the features I want to use worked at some point. Just not all of them with the same driver version. And there were driver version that even did it all (the one before 8.22.x). But one can't stay with an old kernel, forever.

[DirtyHairy]

I think you need to read up on what open source actually means.

Well, my arrogant friend, I presume I pretty well know what opensource means; however, we seem to disagree on the question whose responsibility the development of driver code for hardware advertised as "supported on linux" is. If you find that this question is covered by the definition of opensource or the legal content of different opensource licenses, feel free to drop a link.

Oh, by the way: in which mode are you going to contribute to the development of the opensource drivers?

[Stormking]

Don`t wait a couple of years. Make a list of what doesn`t work on your laptop today with the open source drivers and I think you`ll find that the issues are either already fixed, are in the pipe for fairly short term resolution, or need fixes specific to your platform which are only going to happen with your involvement.

I think we already met in the X-randomly-freezes-thread in the FOSS driver subsection of this forum.

Also, one of the most important drawbacks of the FOSS driver is the OpenGL performance. 60 - 70% of the closed source driver's performance is not an acceptable replacement for the "loss" of it.

[bridgman]

OK, thanks; I'll go back and check that thread.

re: performance, the 60-70% number is an estimate averaged across applications and across GPU generations.

The simpler apps which get run the most under Linux will tend to run faster than the most demanding ones, since the hardest optimization work is usually related to bandwidth-constrained situations on specific applications.

Older GPUs will typically have less of a performance delta than newer GPUs, since the biggest benefit from a more advanced shader compiler comes with the superscalar shader core in 6xx and above. For 5xx and below, with vector pipes rather than superscalar pipes, the shader compiler in fglrx has much less opportunity to optimize. A lot of the really slow performance in 3D on the open source drivers today is from software fallbacks related to missing GL 2.0 features, not the inherent performance of the driver stack.

[Kano]

@bridgman

The Win drivers will be updated still every 3rd month (that's what was written in a news article in german), will the Linux drivers get then updates again too?

[bridgman]

No, we're going to be doing ongoing support for Linux via the open source drivers rather than quarterly updates of fglrx.

The rationale is that most of the people using fglrx on older GPUs in a consumer environment are looking for additional features and functionality, not just minor bug fixes and keeping it working on new X, kernel and distro releases. Given that, going with the open source drivers seems like the right approach.

[DoDoENT]

Just to be clear, we're changing support level for all OSes, not just Linux. There's no new OS support for Windows either, although in fairness the impact on Windows users is less because Windows tends to keep ABI compliance and also releases new OS upgrades at a much slower rate.

So, no Windows 7 for my laptop?

[duby229]

Well, my arrogant friend, I presume I pretty well know what opensource means; however, we seem to disagree on the question whose responsibility the development of driver code for hardware advertised as "supported on linux" is. If you find that this question is covered by the definition of opensource or the legal content of different opensource licenses, feel free to drop a link.

Oh, by the way: in which mode are you going to contribute to the development of the opensource drivers?

The hubris of the misinformed....

You can call me arrogant all you want, but it still doesnt change the fact that it doesnt matter what AMD promised. AMD could promise the earth and the moon and it doesnt matter. The simple matter of fact is that as of this announcement the open source driver --WILL-- improve far beyond what it otherwise would have. I've already explained this, but I'll explain it again if I must. The power behind an open source development model is simply put: The size of it's user base. The bigger the user base is the more potential developers that project will have. And that really is the bottom line. What AMD has done here is they have dramatically increased the size of the open source drivers user base. And what they'll need to do in the future is better organize the manpower in the developer base. And that is nothing but good.

You attack AMD for not supporting there drivers, but the reality is that what they have done is actually much better then just that. Simply supporting the hardware isnt enough.

[bridgman]

So, no Windows 7 for my laptop?

The Windows developers have a different view of ABI compatibility from what I can see. Vista could load XP drivers (albeit with limited functionality AFAIK), and my understanding is that Win7 will work with existing Vista drivers.

What you won't get with older GPUs is the newer WDDM 1.1 driver model, which support some additional features such as using DX10 for DWM. You will get Vista-level functionality and morewith Vista drivers, including Aero Glass.

If a new Windows release causes an existing binary driver to stop working, the Windows devs tend to treat that as *their* problem and their responsibility to fix. If a new Linux kernel or X server causes an existing binary driver to stop working, it's regarded as a driver problem (or "a good start", depending on the developer ).

Perversely, that makes graphics driver maintenance for Linux even *more* expensive than the same level of support for Windows.

While building Windows 7, Microsoft is attempting to resolve scenarios that managed to successfully handicap Windows Vista in terms of compatibility. In this context, in order not to break devices that currently work with its precursor, Windows 7 will come to the table, from the get-go, with support for all Vista-certified drivers. Compatibility with devices designed for Vista ensures that users will have a seamless upgrade/migration experience. Grant George, the VP of Test for the Windows Experience, revealed that Microsoft had full compatibility with Vista-certified drivers for Windows 7 as a primary goal.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-W...y-102076.shtml

[Melcar]

Recently I have been forced to use my old x800gto. Open source drivers work marvelously. For stuff that the regular user does on a daily basis they're more than enough. Movies, DE effects, games (most of then, and most certainly not WINE games), all function reasonably well. The advances being worked on will only make them better (3D speed, more complete support for newer chips, etc.). I can imagine most users or pre r600 cards being very happy with open source drivers.
For me the only real advantage of fglrx is 3D optimization. Speed in 3D applications is always a good thing, and the more you have the better, and if this is of importance to you chances are you have a rather new card, which are in turn supported by fglrx. I really don't see what the big fuss is about, specially on the Linux side.