Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linus Torvalds Calls NVIDIA The Worst Company Ever

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

  • Originally posted by artivision View Post
    Things are very simple. Wine has two ways to work with D3D games. 1)An OpenGL based D3D-10 Compiler (WineD3D) that also works on Windowz. This is CPU light but Graphical not efficient (between 50-80%), and that's because D3D and OGL are different. 2)A to-GLSL Shader Re-constructor. This has 90% Graphical efficiency but uses 2-3 times more CPU, and that's because you represent a Shader to GLSL-source and then you compile it again to GLSL-bytecode. Today there is not merge of those two techs, so best of both is not able. Also those two programs there aren't Multi-threded, so opening two Compiler (rendering) threads is impossible. You can only open one, two threads are possible if the Game can do separate Game+Rendering. So Games like Guild_Wars_2 are nearly not playable (less than 30 FPS) with any system setup and GLSL=enabled (Wine default). CPU bottlenecks and GPU does never fill. There is only a way to survive in this difficult situation and that is "winetrics glsl=disabled" in order to use WineD3D, that doubles your FPS. The bad thing is that only run with Nvidia Cuda GPUs and Nvidia closed_driver. So its up to Wine to correct the CPU problem in order to play everywhere good, or vendor drivers must care about WineD3D to play good with their driver, so far only Nvidia works. Intel is in a good situation because we can do things on their open_driver, because its Open!!!
    There's a fix that improves thread support see: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11674#c263

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Thaodan View Post
      There's a fix that improves thread support see: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11674#c263


      Yeah, but that doesn't have any impact on Wine. WineGLSL will not be multithreaded after this patch nor WineD3D will be. Wine takes HLSL_bytecode and constructs a GLSL_source (singlethreaded), then gives that to the GPU driver (vendor GLSL compilers) and then they give machinery code (multithreaded at least for Nvidia). That will only give you +20-30% FPS because the big eater is WineGLSL.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by artivision View Post
        (snip)

        Intel is in a good situation because we can do things on their open_driver, because its Open!!!
        This is why I say if Intel were to put out one or two high-end GPUs, they'd probably have Linux user loyalty for all eternity for producing a powerful GPU + open source driver that can support Mesa/KMS/fbcon/kernel DRM + being a full driver with complete support for all the GPU's features/speed combination.

        I personally think it wouldn't be too hard for them to do, either, given what their standing is as a microprocessor designer/manufacturer. If they can make powerful x86_64 CPUs they can certainly make powerful GPUs.

        One concern I didn't voice in my original post, though. What if it takes proprietary third party IP to actually make that kind of GPU? It might explain AMD's unwillingness to release complete documentation on their GPUs and nVidia's unwillingness to release any documentation at all. Could this be why Intel has not put forward a "gaming" GPU to compete directly with nVidia or AMD in that market? They want to make damned sure they can keep their driver open source?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Yaro View Post
          One concern I didn't voice in my original post, though. What if it takes proprietary third party IP to actually make that kind of GPU? It might explain AMD's unwillingness to release complete documentation on their GPUs and nVidia's unwillingness to release any documentation at all. Could this be why Intel has not put forward a "gaming" GPU to compete directly with nVidia or AMD in that market? They want to make damned sure they can keep their driver open source?
          Intel must have some reason for keeping their Windows driver closed-source.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by johnc View Post
            Intel must have some reason for keeping their Windows driver closed-source.
            I'll go out on a limb here.

            Maybe it's closed source on Windows because Windows, unlike Linux, is an environment that's predominantly proprietary and no one is really expecting source? I wouldn't read too much into why it's closed source on a closed system but open source on an open system. Just saying.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Yaro View Post
              I'll go out on a limb here.

              Maybe it's closed source on Windows because Windows, unlike Linux, is an environment that's predominantly proprietary and no one is really expecting source? I wouldn't read too much into why it's closed source on a closed system but open source on an open system. Just saying.
              There is a lot of open source software on Windows.

              The fact that Intel seems to have two separate drivers and two separate driver teams that probably don't communicate is indicative of some other reasoning. Why not just have a unified driver like NVIDIA and AMD?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by johnc View Post
                There is a lot of open source software on Windows.

                The fact that Intel seems to have two separate drivers and two separate driver teams that probably don't communicate is indicative of some other reasoning. Why not just have a unified driver like NVIDIA and AMD?
                But still, opening stuff has a cost, you need a legal team to review the whole stuff, possibly redo internally (with clean room) some bits that you bough to a third party, or even possibly, some technology of a startup you bought that you don't own fully, etc...
                Against that, you have gains: you can use open source tools for your driver, other corporations and individuals will be working for you, you can influence the whole platform if it's open too, the kernel/OS developers can work with your stuff more easily, etc..

                For the windows platform, most of these gains don't exist: there are no open source tools or kernel to build upon, and development is centralized. And if you want OS devs to work/debug with you, they all will be professional Microsoft employee, so you can give them NDA + sources or debug dlls, that won't have all the hurdles of public distribution.

                So it's quite possible that costs/benefits balance in one direction on Linux and the other on Windows... If their code base is small enough of "non-legacy" enough, it makes sense for them to develop two drivers, each best adapted to its environment.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Yaro View Post
                  This is why I say if Intel were to put out one or two high-end GPUs, they'd probably have Linux user loyalty for all eternity for producing a powerful GPU + open source driver that can support Mesa/KMS/fbcon/kernel DRM + being a full driver with complete support for all the GPU's features/speed combination.

                  I personally think it wouldn't be too hard for them to do, either, given what their standing is as a microprocessor designer/manufacturer. If they can make powerful x86_64 CPUs they can certainly make powerful GPUs.

                  One concern I didn't voice in my original post, though. What if it takes proprietary third party IP to actually make that kind of GPU? It might explain AMD's unwillingness to release complete documentation on their GPUs and nVidia's unwillingness to release any documentation at all. Could this be why Intel has not put forward a "gaming" GPU to compete directly with nVidia or AMD in that market? They want to make damned sure they can keep their driver open source?


                  Is actually more simple than that. They just don't want MESA to succeed because a Driver Is half the GPU. MESA_accelerator = Competition. They want monopoly and control over as, so they co-develop DirectX with MS and MS granted them monopoly for many years.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by johnc View Post
                    The fact that Intel seems to have two separate drivers and two separate driver teams that probably don't communicate is indicative of some other reasoning. Why not just have a unified driver like NVIDIA and AMD?
                    God, please give me the ability to punch people in face over TCP/IP.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by brosis View Post
                      God, please give me the ability to punch people in face over TCP/IP.
                      What did I say that angered you so much?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X