Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

R600g Geometry Shaders Come For R600/R700

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

  • #31
    OpenGL 3.3

    OpenGL renderer string: Gallium 0.4 on AMD RV635
    OpenGL core profile version string: 3.3 (Core Profile) Mesa 10.1.0-devel
    OpenGL core profile shading language version string: 3.30
    Great, it works here! No visible regressions so far. If there's any way I can test this more thoroughly, someone let me know it.

    Comment


    • #32
      Help Test

      I currently dual boot Win 7/Ubuntu 12.04 LTS on an old Dell Studio 15 laptop with ATI Mobility HD3400 graphics. Is there anything that I could do to help test some of the new drivers and/or other updates? I'm not really that worried about nuking the Ubuntu partition. I have a couple of Windows programs that I've been needing to use lately that makes using Linux my only work driver inconvenient at the moment. I'm going to wipe and replace 12.04 with 14.04 Beta in March in any case, because I want a rock solid LTS for my laptop going forward.

      Is there any where that I can advocate/complain to AMD's legal department about releasing that UVD/UVD+ code promptly? What action can we as a community take to speed that process along? Is there any other documentation currently being held up by AMD legal that could be assisted by community action? Docs and code don't ensure good support, but they definitely don't hurt either.

      Is there a bounty program for volunteers to assist with various coding projects for open-source graphics?

      I really appreciate all of the work that the AMD open source driver team and all of the volunteers have done to this point to make such great strides with open-source graphics support. I'm hoping that with SteamOS, the increasingly broad reach of Qt5, and the massively improved hardware support that I can dump Windows for gaming and other assorted apps sooner than later.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by arboy84 View Post
        Is there any where that I can advocate/complain to AMD's legal department about releasing that UVD/UVD+ code promptly? What action can we as a community take to speed that process along? Is there any other documentation currently being held up by AMD legal that could be assisted by community action? Docs and code don't ensure good support, but they definitely don't hurt either.
        A complaint sent to AMD will likely fall on deaf ears. A complain on the internet for everyone to see, will send investors panicking. OMG OMG, our customers can read? Quick, throw them a bone to make them happy!

        Considering that Phoronix is at the forefront of Linux gaming development, anything posted here will surely be read by someone at AMD. I believe even Gabe Newell lurks these forums, or at least a good deal of Valve employees.
        Last edited by Dukenukemx; 01 February 2014, 01:11 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
          A complaint sent to AMD will likely fall on deaf ears. A complain on the internet for everyone to see, will send investors panicking. OMG OMG, our customers can read? Quick, throw them a bone to make them happy!

          Considering that Phoronix is at the forefront of Linux gaming development, anything posted here will surely be read by someone at AMD. I believe even Gabe Newell lurks these forums, or at least a good deal of Valve employees.
          People from AMD reply to posts here all the time, so it's a safe bet we're reading the posts too

          I'm not going to bother explaining the review process again, but we spent a couple of years getting you initial open source UVD and DPM support and this isn't likely to be any easier.

          It's been in the pipe for a while as Christian said (along with a number of other goodies... some of which you have seen already and others you have not), but these things do take time. We can't monopolize the R&D leadership of the company for open source releases; we do have to let the nice folks do their *other* jobs some of the time too.
          Test signature

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
            How is it with open source drivers?


            Wine is a hit or a miss. World of Warcraft runs fine, but are certain settings. Dark Souls doesn't work at all.
            With Debian's aging open-source drivers, it's not very good for games, but at least xscreensaver behaves itself. Unvanquished won't run, and a lot of Wine programs will refuse to work.
            I haven't tried to use newer ones.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by bridgman View Post
              It's been in the pipe for a while as Christian said (along with a number of other goodies... some of which you have seen already and others you have not), but these things do take time. We can't monopolize the R&D leadership of the company for open source releases; we do have to let the nice folks do their *other* jobs some of the time too.
              Of course, but as Christian K?nig stated, UVD for RS780/RS880/RV790 has currently a low priority, so if enough people complain about it possibly someone at AMD reconsiders and sets it to a higher priority.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                Of course, but as Christian K?nig stated, UVD for RS780/RS880/RV790 has currently a low priority, so if enough people complain about it possibly someone at AMD reconsiders and sets it to a higher priority.
                No, he said that "it didn't have a high priority". There's a lot of difference between "not high priority" and "low priority" -- most of what we do happens between those two extremes.



                Almost everyone here is reacting not to what was actually said, but to other peoples misinterpretation of what was said. It's good for page hits, but not good for having an accurate picture of what is really happening.
                Test signature

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                  No, he said that "it didn't have a high priority". There's a lot of difference between "not high priority" and "low priority" -- most of what we do happens between those two extremes.



                  Almost everyone here is reacting not to what was actually said, but to other peoples misinterpretation of what was said. It's good for page hits, but not good for having an accurate picture of what is really happening.
                  I stand corrected.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by siavashserver
                    Just reading (selectively sometimes) is not enough.
                    It is when the question is whether anyone from AMD is reading the posts

                    Originally posted by siavashserver
                    My concern is that AMD is going on an intentional not-so-old-hardware-ignoring-spree.
                    (scratches head) didn't we just finish releasing DPM support for hardware that was designed ~7 years ago (HD 3xxx / 42xx) ? I guess I don't understand what you would base those concerns on.

                    Originally posted by siavashserver
                    For example is there any guaranties that AMD will keep working on feature parity and OGL4 support for 5/6/7K series in up coming years like new R series? Is there any guaranties so we will not hear anymore "Our top technical engineers are busy with new Fart Islands" or "7000 series are totally different. LOL" from AMD?
                    (scratches head again) Sorry, but nobody in the industry is going to give you a guarantee like that. Our top technical engineers *are* going to be working on (not actually Fart Islands but that'll do for now) and we will get some of their time to support open source releases. That allocation of time has been gradually increasing over the last 5 years and will probably continue to increase, but it will still be finite.

                    What I don't understand, I guess, is why everyone is so focused on this one thing when everything else we've released in the last 6+ years has required just as much effort as this. We have more resources on open source support than ever, and the pace of release is faster than ever, why run around saying the sky is falling now ?
                    Test signature

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by siavashserver
                      My concern is that AMD is going on an intentional not-so-old-hardware-ignoring-spree.
                      Hmm... Apart from the minor contradiction that you posted this on an article about the availability of patches for new features on the R600g code branch...

                      ...and that Geometry Shaders (ok, and the questionable-quality v1.0 UVD/OpenCL hardware) is one of the few remaining features of R600 not yet supported according to http://xorg.freedesktop.org/wiki/RadeonFeature/

                      ....and that this patch starts the last remaining big chunk of work before supporting OpenGL 3.3 (the highest version of OpenGL originally supported by the R600/R700 shipped) according to http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/tree/docs/GL3.txt

                      ...and that this web site has repeatedly shown good performance from that driver.

                      ...and the question as to why if you are so worried about having cutting edge graphics features, you aren't already upgrading your GFX card every five minutes, like most PC gamers seem to.

                      ...I think I can see why you are concerned . At this stage, though, I'm far more worried that adding feature XXX that I don't need or use, use will break/degrade/change something that already works.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X