Originally posted by agd5f
View Post
CPU roadmaps would have month/year - structure size - number of transistors - cache sizes - pci version - TDP range - ... going years in the future. This had been possible (I know Intel provided those data till dropping such roadmaps altogether - I had been in the Intel camp since 8086 wiht IBM PS/2 model 30 in 1997).
So no, I am not aware of current roadmaps from Intel or AMD - PR material, yes - but no technical roadmaps.
And news articles speak of "leaked info" as the manufacturers won't give it, e.g. structure size of future Intel CPUs would be 1.4 nm in 2029 (provided by e.g. Heise two days ago - and yes, TDP is not given, so doing this with TDP 1 mW {yes, 0.001 W} will qualify to have reached that goal - sorry for extrapolating current conditions to the future - old tradition as scientist ).
It there would be roadmaps, one could tell me e.g. "APUs supporting 8k res are expected in, e.g., June 2019 - and not being forced to say
`Sorry, as always "unable to comment on possible future products" ' - so these are confidential info under NDA (which I do respect!) - roadmaps from news magazines should be open information anyone can get and share - and "leaked information" should not be possible at all as this indicates that someone did illegal things to provide that information (leaked info should be legal if criminals are revealed by that, of cause).
But it is much worse - a product is available (e.g. Navi 14 - bad example as all technical news sites do give these data in THIS case) and you don't get info about DP and HDMI versions.
PC Builders ask manufacturers as they don't have standard info for products sold by them for months (not kidding - they could not tell me what maximum resolution Raven Ridge has - especially as one can find statements that `Vega is internally 8k capable' ... very interesting, isn't it).
And I was told it would be chipset limited on purpose - whatever that should mean.
From my point of view: if information is not available speculations and lies can prosper - no company should want this ...
I made a request at AMD to get info for APUs and got
"The maximum supported resolution with integrated graphics will depend on the motherboard being used and what type of display connections are available to the integrated graphics via the motherboard." so "with motherboard ... you get DP ...", and I don't get the point AMD did not nail such specifications so e.g. 3400G can be stated with max resolution ...
and force vendors to use the required parts. And of cause to keep standards fully so Linux will run without problems ...
IF such basic information would be given (sometimes I have the impression it is more chance than purpose what port version is used), the former statement "I expect the same would hold for other dGPUs in the Navi family" would not be given but Navi dGPUs and APUs will have at least ... - as updates could be possible. AMD could have clearly stated that as Navi was optimized for 4k and 8k it will provide DP 1.4 HDR and HDMI 2.0 "or higher" - but this seems not to be the case. I don't think it is much cheaper to use of DP 1.2 and HDMI 1.4 - which should have been died when DP 1.4 and HDMI 2.0 got available in production amount.
Looking on AMD technical specification you can see DP yes, HDMI yes - sorry, but these are not technical data, are they?
And now I hope it is clear what I want to see as roadmap - clear technical details in a timeline - as was standard in former times - nothing unheard of.
Originally posted by agd5f
View Post
Yes, that's exactly what I was interested in - and I would ask: is Navi 10 and Navi 14 tested with 8k@60Hz using DP 1.4 (i.e. one cable; MST is a mess) and running with the free Linux stack or at least with the AMD Linux stack?
And I may get the answer yes, it was tested with Motherboard ... with Revision ... - no, I had been too long in IT business to be amused - shocked would meet it much better.
And as both products are available the AMD developer could provide that information - and IF necessary with a huge table giving boards and versions which will work under GNU/Linux.
I am going further to ask "why were the Linux users not warned that Raven Ridge is not working with Linux and the free graphics stack" .... I read it first here on Phoronix - that was nice as I would have bought one - but I would feel much better if that warning came from AMD and Phoronix would report "as informed by AMD we got trouble with ... AMD will report when this got fixed" or something similar.
I might get the answer if I would create a request for this that Raven Ridge will work but the chipset for ... was buggy which is not the responsibility of AMD.
Right? So what is the lessons learnt by users? You can not be sure AMD product work under GNU/Linux even in case free drivers do exist due to problematic chipsets.
I would wish AMD, people using GNU/Linux, and all people providing technical news to be able to give/get statements about compatibility.
Thus a "Linux conformant" label {not limited to the kernel, i.e. incl. Mesa and Userspace - but LF won't use the term GNU/Linux I assume} provided by Linux Foundation would be a good idea - as we have found too much examples for which it went miserably wrong - and this situation appears not to improve.
And I don't want to blame AMD {at least alone} - when Intel Skylake appeared, it was even a larger disaster (they got it later - much later - so maybe Raven Ridge might work some times ... maybe) - and there was an Intel controller only supported in a special mode under Linux - and Motherboards of ... (ASUS provided an aged but interesting list about their motherboards and Linux compatibility - at least Google can find it - and other may have or at least should start providing info, too).
And I just wonder why problems are not known the day the product is officially released. That would be possible ... in most cases at least.
I ran a test set to get go for new workstation HW for an automotive company - after getting good testers we got really good results and typically fixed all problems BEFORE those new system and Unix images got available.
And what I would wish for is just AMD providing information about Linux support of a product (e.g. "runs on Linux despite ability to overclock" or whatever may cause trouble or is simply not available [yet - which should be updated when ready with e.g. "using Mesa 20.3+ and Linux 5.8.0+"). Too much to ask for?
Personal bottom line: I will try to get a customized PC from a builder I know to make it as silent as possible with e.g. Ryzen 5 3600 (Zen2) & Radeon RX 5500 XT (RDNA Navi 14) and will make sure an image like L|Xubuntu 20.04 LTS with minimum kernel and Mesa as given by Phoronix is available (about Feb.+) and will test it myself as far as can right now (up to 4k).
And when 8k screens are available for < 600$ I will buy one and if it won't work I will learn a lesson and replace the graphics card (new thing when using iGPUs for more than 10 years).
So I have to test it myself and may give the PC back or pay a price in wasting a graphics card + losing last bit of trust in statements of the involved companies.
In that case maybe the next but one would be a POWER, RISC V or ARM CPU ... in 2026 or so ...
Linux Torvalds is right very often ... in some cases it would be better if it isn't so and the world would be a better place ... )
But there is still hope that things improve [or using the business term: "Lessons Learnt"] - with clear technical data and a clear statement about Linux support ... which may require several changes ... and learning several things from the past which were right and are just screwed today (not isolated to a single company - just hinting on scientific papers before 2000 about possible security problems with OoOE - long before Spectre&Meltdown was even coined as terms ... with shiny CPU manufacturers involved ... absolutely not limited to PCs).
Leave a comment: