"Ask ATI" dev thread

[Melcar]

No problem when only advanced users know of Textured2D/TexturedXrender, which is still experimental. But it is indeed a problem if only advanced users know of TexturedVideo which is needed for Xv on all cards since late 2005!

What I still haven't figured out about the TexturedVideo option is why in some chips it's enabled by default while in others it isn't. On my HD2900XT and HD3850 it's on by default (according to xorg.0.log), but on my 200M I have to manually specify the option in xorg.conf for TexturedVideo to be enabled.

[bridgman]

As I understand it, for pre-Avivo parts (anything up to X1050) we enable VideoOverlay by default, since that arguably offers the best combination of video quality and low CPU utilization. On the Avivo parts (X12xx and up), which have a less capable overlay processor but more shader power, we enable Textured Video by default.

If you have a pre-Avivo GPU but are using a compositing desktop, you would probably want to enable Textured Video rather than VideoOverlay, but the installer isn't smart enough to do that for you yet.

[djdoo]

If you have a pre-Avivo GPU but are using a compositing desktop, you would probably want to enable Textured Video rather than VideoOverlay, but the installer isn't smart enough to do that for you yet.

You mean that for Compiz-Fusion via AIGLX method using a Radeon 9600 card let's say, TextureVideo is preffered than classic VideoOverlay??
And why is that??
You said that these cards have better video overlay capabilities...
What is the difference if you use Composite Desktop to the video part??

[Melcar]

As I understand it, for pre-Avivo parts (anything up to X1050) we enable VideoOverlay by default, since that arguably offers the best combination of video quality and low CPU utilization. On the Avivo parts (X12xx and up), which have a less capable overlay processor but more shader power, we enable Textured Video by default.

If you have a pre-Avivo GPU but are using a compositing desktop, you would probably want to enable Textured Video rather than VideoOverlay, but the installer isn't smart enough to do that for you yet.

So since those options are turned on/off by default I should not even bother to specify them on xorg.conf right.? Many distro specific install guides for fglrx tell the user to manually specify VideoOverlay and OpenGLOverlay when configuring the driver, which according to you it shouldn't be necessary, as everything is set automatically (unless one wishes to force OpenGLOverlay or TexturedVideo).

You mean that for Compiz-Fusion via AIGLX method using a Radeon 9600 card let's say, TextureVideo is preffered than classic VideoOverlay??
And why is that??
You said that these cards have better video overlay capabilities...
What is the difference if you use Composite Desktop to the video part??

That would be useful to know, specially if it brings performance boosts. As I said, many install guides tell the user to simply use VideoOverlay.

[bridgman]

You mean that for Compiz-Fusion via AIGLX method using a Radeon 9600 card let's say, TextureVideo is preffered than classic VideoOverlay??
And why is that??
You said that these cards have better video overlay capabilities...
What is the difference if you use Composite Desktop to the video part??

Today I'm not sure it makes a lot of difference, but the output from TexturedVideo can, in principle, be composited while the overlay can not.

So since those options are turned on/off by default I should not even bother to specify them on xorg.conf right.? Many distro specific install guides for fglrx tell the user to manually specify VideoOverlay and OpenGLOverlay when configuring the driver, which according to you it shouldn't be necessary, as everything is set automatically (unless one wishes to force OpenGLOverlay or TexturedVideo).

I believe the default behaviour I described is fairly recent, and on the earlier drivers the defaults did not vary with the GPU.

[chikazuku]

Does ATI care for their performance issues with KDE4? (Or perhaps Qt4 in general?) I have been suffering from really bad performance in KDE4, after searching on Google all that came up was:

There seems to be an issue with the fglrx driver and KDE4, which causes windows to be painted/repainted very slow on KDE4, while this does not occur on KDE3. It doesn't matter if compositing effects are turned on or off in KDE4. Using the free radeon or radeonhd drivers seems not to cause such performance problems. You may have to blacklist the 'fglrx' driver in /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist, to prevent it from being loaded automatically on bootup. If you change your xorg.conf to use the radeon or radeonhd driver, but the fglrx module is still loaded (even if it is no used) you might encounter those performance problems in KDE4.

I can cleary see this when resizing windows. Is ATi going to fix this or is it low priority?

[d2kx]

Does ATI care for their performance issues with KDE4? (Or perhaps Qt4 in general?) I have been suffering from really bad performance in KDE4, after searching on Google all that came up was:



I can cleary see this when resizing windows. Is ATi going to fix this or is it low priority?

You could give Textured2D/TexturedXrender a try. But I am sure that these options/other optimizations will take place before KDE 4.1 releases.

[NeoBrain]

I can cleary see this when resizing windows. Is ATi going to fix this or is it low priority?

This isn't just KDE 4 behavior; it also occurs on emerald/compiz.
I can only see the original sized and the resized window, the rest is "lagged away"

[chikazuku]

You could give Textured2D/TexturedXrender a try. But I am sure that these options/other optimizations will take place before KDE 4.1 releases.

I've enabled Textured2D and TexturedXrender, however it makes everything that's blue yellow IIRC. With KWin's OpenGL compositing enabled it's correct.

This isn't just KDE 4 behavior; it also occurs on emerald/compiz.
I can only see the original sized and the resized window, the rest is "lagged away"

Hmm, okay. But there's something extra lagging with KDE4 and/or Qt4 because rendering in Konqueror4 suffers greatly. Typing in this reply textfield for example has a noticable lag. It's not irritating but it shouldn't happen, however the overal lag in everything is irritating.

[NeoBrain]

I was just wondering why the (afaik-)full-featured Windows XP ATI driver is 44 MB big and the linux one that lacks many features 50 MB?
Also, are there plans to split the driver itself and the CCC into separate packages like for Windows?