Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Radeon + AMDGPU Performance On Linux 4.6

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    We call the open source stack "amdgpu all-open" internally which seems to help avoid confusion. So one radeon all-open stack and two amdgpu stacks - all-open and hybrid/pro.
    So, if amdgpu pro is named that way to distinguish from amdgpu all-open, do you mean pro is there for PROprietary?

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by illwieckz View Post

      So, if amdgpu pro is named that way to distinguish from amdgpu all-open, do you mean pro is there for PROprietary?
      It's short for professional, as in the professional market and not the consumer market.

      If you want to call it short for Proprietary, I don't think anyone will care but it will confuse people because it's only partly proprietary and partly open source.

      Comment


      • #23
        Nothing is proprietary in the amdgpu-pro kernel driver, the source is available. It's just stuff that can't go upstream until we have an open source user (e.g., some misc bits for Vulkan and OCL) and a bunch of ifdefs for building against older kernels for enterprise distros.

        Comment


        • #24
          You seem to get better performance here
          http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...-nv-glvk&num=3

          Oh, people pointed that out already, also is there any issues moving to LLVM3.9? compatibility with drivers/steam/games? Does the AMDGPU-Pro driver work with latest LLVM? All I know is if you UPDATE it, then try to ROLL back to 3.8, disaster happens as the system requires almost a complete reinstall (should probably start cloning drive being updating critical stuff like this).
          Last edited by theriddick; 29 March 2016, 04:17 PM.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by bridgman View Post
            So one radeon all-open stack and two amdgpu stacks - all-open and hybrid/pro.
            Originally posted by illwieckz View Post
            So, if amdgpu pro is named that way to distinguish from amdgpu all-open, do you mean pro is there for PROprietary?
            Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
            It's short for professional, as in the professional market and not the consumer market.
            If pro in amdgpu pro is a short for professional, does it mean all-open is not professional? It's the same kind of confusion people do when they oppose open-source software against commercial software, but here it's opposing open-source software and professional software.

            I buy AMD hardware since almost ten years because AMD contributes professionally on the open-source Mesa and Linux radeon stuff since almost ten years. AMD people there are knowing they are the same peoples from the same employer on the amdgpu and the amdgpu-pro stack. So, both amdgpu all-open and amgdpu-pro are a part of the same professional product.

            There was no moral judgment when I asked if pro means proprietary. Saying there is closed bits in amdgpu-pro is not a moral judgment, it's a fact and I'm happy with that. If someone says amdgpu-pro is shipped with some proprietary bits unlike amdgpu all-open, it's not a moral judgment, it's a fact. If someone says amdgpu-pro is professional unlike amdgpu all-open, it's a moral judgment.

            I will be very happy to use some amdgpu-pro bits even if it's closed source if it gives access to some early functionalities before it's upstreamed or implemented in Mesa/Linux. Thanks to the amdgpu architecture, these proprietary bits are just like some plug-in with different EULA in a whole professional product. So, the amdgpu all-open bits are not less professional, it's just the same product minus some plug-ins from the same professional offer.

            By the way, I expect from professional stuff to be able to report issues. I'm already able to do it for amdgpu stuff and I'm already doing it for radeon stuff, so, the professionalism of the all-open part of the amdgpu product is proven, it still remains to be demonstrated for the amdgpu-pro part.

            My GPU is a current high-end product which is still on sale on the market today which is unfortunately not supported officially by the amdgpu-pro offer. There is EDID issue, firmware loading issue and performance issue (probably reclocking issue). I will be happy to report everything I experience to make the amdgpu-pro offer better for everyone. I can do some tests too.

            [sorry for that multiple posting bug, I deleted extraneous entries.]
            Last edited by illwieckz; 29 March 2016, 10:11 PM.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by agd5f View Post
              Nothing is proprietary in the amdgpu-pro kernel driver, the source is available. It's just stuff that can't go upstream until we have an open source user (e.g., some misc bits for Vulkan and OCL) and a bunch of ifdefs for building against older kernels for enterprise distros.
              My understanding was "amdgpu-pro" referred to the entire driver stack, which is a mix of oss and proprietary. At least that's the way I've been seeing it referred to around here.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by illwieckz



                If pro in amdgpu pro is a short for professional, does it mean all-open is not professional? It's the same kind of confusion people do when they oppose open-source software against commercial software, here opposing professional software against all-open software. There was no moral judgment in my use of the proprietary word. If there is some closed bits in amgdpu, it's not a moral judgement, it's a fact, and I'm ok with that. However, using the professional word introduces a moral judgement.

                Qualifying closed bits as proprietary is not a judgment, it's a fact, Qualifying closed bits as professional is not a fact, it's a judgment. There is absolutely no problem if amgdpu-pro ships some closed proprietary bits, that's the rationale of the amdgpu-pro (and if it enables early stuff for my hardware I will probably use it happily, that's why I asked before where and how I can report bugs).

                Since people working on amdgpu and amdgpu-pro are the same people with the same employer, the distinction between amdgpu and amdgpu-pro does not seems to be between professional or not professional. If I buy GPU from AMD since almost ten years, it's because AMD works professionally on the open-source radeon (and now amdgpu) Linux development since almost ten years (and I was always OK to use proprietary fallback while waiting for stuff being cleanly upstreamed in Mesa/Linux).

                To me the amdgpu project looks to be the same professional experience with some optional proprietary features available under the amdgpu pro branding. As user, both are part of the same professional experience. It's just like having one or two plug-ins with a different EULA in a whole professional product.

                By the way, I expect from a professional product the ability to report issues about, so I hope we will be able soon to report issues for amdgpu-pro stuff like I'm already reporting issues for radeon stuff (and like I would be already doing with amdgpu if I were owning a GCN 1.2 hardware). To me the professionalism of the radeon/amdgpu experience is already there, but it remains to be demonstrated with the amdgpu-pro experience.
                Are you also confused when Microsoft sells Windows Home vs Windows Professional? I feel like this is fairly standard in the tech industry, and not that difficult to figure out.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                  My understanding was "amdgpu-pro" referred to the entire driver stack, which is a mix of oss and proprietary. At least that's the way I've been seeing it referred to around here.
                  Correct. If we want to be very precise, the "pro" in the amdgpu hybrid/pro driver comes from FirePRO, and AFAIK the "pro" in FirePRO comes from what is generally referred to as the professional or workstation graphics market.

                  BTW the reason for calling one of the driver stacks "Pro" was probably more obvious when we were looking at having three stacks. Alex outlined the three-stack plan at XDC in 2014 -- the all-open stack plus two hybrid stacks, one for workstation/FirePro GPUs ("Pro") and one for consumer GPUs ("Non-Pro").
                  Last edited by bridgman; 29 March 2016, 09:48 PM.
                  Test signature

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by illwieckz
                    If pro in amdgpu pro is a short for professional, are you meaning all-open is not professional? It looks like the same confusion people do when they oppose open-source software and commercial software, but here it's opposing open-source software and professional software.

                    I buy AMD hardware since almost ten years because AMD contributes professionally on the open-source Mesa and Linux radeon stuff since almost ten years. AMD people there are knowing they are the same peoples from the same employer on the amdgpu and the amdgpu-pro stack. So, both amdgpu all-open and amgdpu-pro are a part of the same professional product.

                    There was no moral judgment when I asked if pro means proprietary. Saying there is closed bits in amdgpu-pro is not a moral judgment, it's a fact and I'm happy with that. If someone says amdgpu-pro is shipped with some proprietary bits unlike amdgpu all-open, it's not a moral judgment, it's a fact. If someone says amdgpu-pro is professional unlike amdgpu all-open, it's a moral judgment.

                    I will be very happy to use some amdgpu-pro bits even if it's closed source if it gives access to some early functionalities before it's upstreamed or implemented in Mesa/Linux. Thanks to the amdgpu architecture, these proprietary bits are just like some plug-in with different EULA in a whole professional product. So, the amdgpu all-open bits are not less professional, it's just the same product less some plug-ins from the same professional offer.

                    By the way, I expect from professional stuff to be able to report issues. I'm already able to do it for amdgpu stuff and I'm already doing it for radeon stuff, so, the professionalism of the all-open part of the amdgpu product is proven, it still remains to be demonstrated for the amdgpu-pro part.

                    My GPU is a current high-end product which is still on sale on the market today which is unfortunately not supported officially by the amdgpu-pro offer. There is EDID issue, firmware loading issue and performance issue (probably reclocking issue). I will be happy to report everything I experience to make the amdgpu-pro offer better for everyone. I can do some tests too.
                    Thanks. Which card do you have BTW ?
                    Test signature

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      As someone with an R9 285, this makes me sad. I tried playing the new beta for Lifeless Planet using the Mesa stack, and I was very disappointed with how slow it was (~10 FPS, which I eventually gave up after finding one particular jump was seemingly impossible to make at that frame-rate). The AMDGPU driver on the hybrid stack on 14.04.4 crashes for me (as bridgman is aware from a GoL discussion). That means I'm still stuck on Catalyst which isn't getting any support updates.

                      I really hope the R9 285 issues can be addressed soon.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X