Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: AMD R600g Now Does TBO, UBO & Advertises GLSL 1.40

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xeno View Post
    Unfrotunatelly FOSS driver pm capabilies are light-years behind catalyst. If powertop numbers from 2 mobile chipsets (radeon 4330 and 5650) are in any way meaningfull, going from high to low profile on idle/low load saves about 2watts, going from radeon low profile to catalysts gives another 5W. Also the problem is not just battery life, heat is even ore important. Fryning +1000$ laptop is way uncool. (pun kinda intended).
    If you can overheat the laptop just by running gpu-intensive applications then it's either badly engineered or has dirty fans. Either way, I'd suggest not buying consumer level crap in the future.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neatnoise View Post
    I have a question that not really fits with this thread.
    It's about MSAA for R600g. Why games like Xonotic, sauerbraten don't recognize AA support? Even though AA works with set GALLIUM_MSAA variable, games don't seem to 'see' this newly added feature.
    Setting LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH is not enough. You must install r600g first and then restart the X server for it to pick up the MSAA visuals. glxinfo should list them.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by airlied View Post
    There is a tree on github with unproven geometry shader code for r600g, intel would need to add 965 support, it just needs a lot of piglit tests and a lot of review, the last missing bit then is GL_ARB_texture_multisample which is also under construction by another dev for 965, which could be fixed up for gallium fairly easily hopefully.

    but writing the piglit tests for geometry shaders is probably the biggest problem.

    Dave.
    Although there are no piglit tests for it yet, my geometry shader code on GitHub has had a decent amount of stress-testing; I'm not too concerned about an abundance of bugs in the existing code. Aside from piglit tests (which are, as you say, the biggest problem), though, there are a few other things that need to be done:
    • The changes will need to be rebased and reformatted into a sane patch set rather than the current haphazard mix of commits that add functionality with commits to fix mistakes in previous changes.
    • The interactions with FBOs (section "Dependencies on EXT_framebuffer_object" in the ARB_geometry_shader4 spec) need to be implemented. This might only be needed for the EXT/ARB extensions and not core, but with this much work done on the extensions it would be silly not to support them as well as the core version. It seems that doing this properly will also require changes to the softpipe driver.
    • If it hasn't already been done, the GLSL compiler will need to implement the core version of the geometry shader language. The main change is using the "gl_in[]" struct array for input/output instead of one input array per attribute. This will just require a lowering pass to lower gl_PerVertex accesses to the 2D array accesses used in the extension, which can be (and already are) sanely translated to TGSI by glsl_to_tgsi.


    Also, sorry for suddenly disappearing from the graphics world last year. Hopefully I will be able to be able to do more for Mesa in the future, but for now there's not much choice but to leave my unfinished geometry shader work to be completed by someone else.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Hi Plombo....

    I'm not a dev, but I just wanted to tell you thanks for the work you've already done. And thanks for posting here what the status is. At the very minimum at least now we know that you are tied up with something else so that this work can be completed by someone else.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Plombo View Post
    Also, sorry for suddenly disappearing from the graphics world last year. Hopefully I will be able to be able to do more for Mesa in the future, but for now there's not much choice but to leave my unfinished geometry shader work to be completed by someone else.
    Plombo, if the problem is money, please go to Ubuntu, Suse and Fedora forums; post the current state and expected state; post the amount you need and -very important- update the status with reproducable results as you progress.
    If the problem is not money,.. I hope you can resolve it...

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Plombo, if the problem is money, please go to Ubuntu, Suse and Fedora forums; post the current state and expected state; post the amount you need and -very important- update the status with reproducable results as you progress.
    If the problem is not money,.. I hope you can resolve it...
    Money isn't the problem. The reason I had to stop my geometry shader work is that I stopped having much free time for a while. I actually had more free time during the last month or so, but with less motivation than before to use it to work on geometry shaders. Someone else recently expressed interest in finishing the GS work, though, so hopefully it will be ready in time for the next major Mesa release. I'll still be around to answer any questions that come up, of course, and do whatever else I can to help.

    And thanks for your message. It's really nice to know that someone cares.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Russe, Bulgaria
    Posts
    540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Plombo View Post
    Money isn't the problem. The reason I had to stop my geometry shader work is that I stopped having much free time for a while. I actually had more free time during the last month or so, but with less motivation than before to use it to work on geometry shaders. Someone else recently expressed interest in finishing the GS work, though, so hopefully it will be ready in time for the next major Mesa release. I'll still be around to answer any questions that come up, of course, and do whatever else I can to help.

    And thanks for your message. It's really nice to know that someone cares.
    Many people care, more than you can imagine.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drago View Post
    Many people care, more than you can imagine.
    +1

    Albatros

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Plombo View Post
    Money isn't the problem. The reason I had to stop my geometry shader work is that I stopped having much free time for a while. I actually had more free time during the last month or so, but with less motivation than before to use it to work on geometry shaders. Someone else recently expressed interest in finishing the GS work, though, so hopefully it will be ready in time for the next major Mesa release. I'll still be around to answer any questions that come up, of course, and do whatever else I can to help.

    And thanks for your message. It's really nice to know that someone cares.
    We do care and any work that makes radeon driver better is AWESOME work.

    I have a dual-head setup so the catalyst drivers are basically unusable for me, as such, any work that makes the radeon driver a bit faster is really appreciated.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,284

    Default

    GS are usually a speed drop, not an increase

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •