Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Apple M1 Pro/Max/Ultra Device Trees Under Review For Linux

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

  • #21
    I have a Radeon in an ARM board (Honeycomb LX2K), and I like it, but it encounters all sorts of kernel and glibc and mesa bugs that aren't its fault, but apparently the ARM and AMDGPU maintainers refuse to accept patches to fix some of them, even when the patches fix slow performance, too.

    https://nitter.net/linux4kix/status/...813566840836#m
    https://nitter.net/linux4kix/status/...210409644032#m
    https://nitter.net/linux4kix/

    It'll be really sad if, solely thanks to the maintainers dragging their feet on patches for years, the only way to get a usable aarch64 desktop will be to buy one from a company that's hostile to device ownership.​
    Last edited by DanaG; 12 September 2022, 05:57 PM.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
      Firstly, I've told you this in the past with Adreno and ATI. Secondly, AMD sold their mobile Radeon graphics to Qualcomm, so that doesn't count as them licensing their GPU designs out so much as selling it. 3rd, this was done right after AMD bought ATI. There's been rumors that AMD is working with Qualcomm to bring their RDNA graphics to their ARM based SoC's.
      if they do license their design this count but if they sell the design this does not count ? man you are strange.
      of course this counts. and of course we see future amd designs in the ARM SOC world.

      Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
      Pretty sure Intel made their own graphics from scratch. What Intel did was hire Raja Koduri who is basically responsible for Vega. They didn't pull an Apple and use AMD's licensing and designs.

      https://www.custompcreview.com/news/...ated-graphics/
      https://wccftech.com/intel-strikes-d...phics-license/
      https://wccftech.com/intel-allegedly...icensing-deal/

      "Pretty sure Intel made their own graphics from scratch."

      sure that was a complete failure. and you can only do this with pay for patents to amd or nvidia they did pay nvidia in the past and moved to amd.

      Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
      Yea their CPU not a GPU on another CPU architecture. Basically China are assholes and won't let anyone sell their stuff in China without it being owned by a Chinese company.
      you know these made in china x86 designs failed horrible ... 8core cpu a complete failure.

      Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
      Back in the day the best mobile GPU was PowerVR. AMD sold their mobile GPU tech to Qualcomm and that's how we got Adreno. Apple couldn't because Qualcomm owned it.
      man what a bullshit talk AMD only sold obsolete GPU tech to Qualcomm they could have licensed AMD's VLIW5D/4D design to apple and later the GCN1.0-4.0 and later the RDNA1/2 design. Qualcomm did not have VLIW4D/5D design and _Qualcomm did not have GCN design and yes now they license RDNA design.

      "Back in the day the best mobile GPU was PowerVR."

      this was only because if tiled based rendering... AMD introduced tiled based rendering to GCN with Vega.

      Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
      Since then the Adreno graphics have been giving PowerVR trouble in beating it in performance.

      PowerVR design goal was never "Performance" it was FPS per Watt...

      Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
      Also, Apple pretty much remade PowerVR after Apple had destroyed them as a company. Imaginations stock value plummeted so fast that a Chinese company bought them. Even though Apple did poach a number of engineers from Imagination, it still wasn't enough to make their own GPU. They had to license a bunch of it.
      in history PowerVR GPU was a failure from day 1 ... and you know back in 1999-2003 i had a PowerVR GPU it was a complete failure and i did bring it back to the store because of massive problems it only supported 256mb of ram and my pc had already 512mb ram.
      so you just talk bullshit apple did not destry POWERVR as a company because PowerVR was a failure from day1.
      it is a wonder a real wonder that this company even exist today. and its a wonder AMD did license powerVR design instead of AMD one.

      Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
      AMD is more willing than Nvidia but I wouldn't call them the most cooperative. That would probably be Mali graphics, which is made by ARM. Not bad graphics but not good enough to compete against AMD and Nvidia, much like Apple's GPU tech.
      its easy to license Mali thats right but AMD gpi IP is lightyears ahead of that. can mali run cuda or a copy of cuda like amd ROCm(HIp no.. does Mali have raytraicng support?... no...

      in my point of view apple should license RDNA3 amd design because their PowerVR design is not a competive gpu design.
      Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by qarium View Post
        if they do license their design this count but if they sell the design this does not count ? man you are strange.
        of course this counts. and of course we see future amd designs in the ARM SOC world.
        They sold their entire mobile graphics to Qualcomm because AMD spent a lot in buying ATI. They're not actively selling their tech to Qualcomm. That was a one time deal.
        https://www.custompcreview.com/news/...ated-graphics/
        https://wccftech.com/intel-strikes-d...phics-license/
        https://wccftech.com/intel-allegedly...icensing-deal/

        "Pretty sure Intel made their own graphics from scratch."

        sure that was a complete failure. and you can only do this with pay for patents to amd or nvidia they did pay nvidia in the past and moved to amd.
        That all resorted into this. Notice the chips are separate and not combined. AMD will sell chips not designs.

        you know these made in china x86 designs failed horrible ... 8core cpu a complete failure.
        I wonder why when they're using VIA's x86 design. The AMD stuff is more expensive.

        man what a bullshit talk
        Someone isn't self aware.
        AMD only sold obsolete GPU tech to Qualcomm they could have licensed AMD's VLIW5D/4D design to apple and later the GCN1.0-4.0 and later the RDNA1/2 design. Qualcomm did not have VLIW4D/5D design and _Qualcomm did not have GCN design and yes now they license RDNA design.
        AMD could but Apple I'm sure didn't, at least not for mobile. Remember it was Apple who didn't go with AMD, not the other way around. Up until Apple built their own Silicon, they did use AMD's GPUs for their laptops and desktops. But yea, you're starting to get the idea here in that AMD sold their obsolete tech to Qualcomm, and yet Qualcomm is still making it work. Obviously Apple is pushing Qualcomm to seek out AMD for their new RDNA tech. We have yet to see how this will work out.
        "Back in the day the best mobile GPU was PowerVR."

        this was only because if tiled based rendering... AMD introduced tiled based rendering to GCN with Vega.
        Yea as in way back.
        PowerVR design goal was never "Performance" it was FPS per Watt...
        PowerVR was available on PC back in 2020 and failed because Geforce 256 and Radeon 7200 was better and faster. So Imagination pulled out and focused on mobile where there's no competition. When iPhone was released, it breathed new financial life into PowerVR.
        in history PowerVR GPU was a failure from day 1 ... and you know back in 1999-2003 i had a PowerVR GPU it was a complete failure and i did bring it back to the store because of massive problems it only supported 256mb of ram and my pc had already 512mb ram.
        PowerVR's title based rendering doesn't need as much VRAM as other GPU's. The failure was that ATI and Nvidia was still faster, had more features, and much better driver support.
        so you just talk bullshit apple did not destry POWERVR as a company because PowerVR was a failure from day1.
        it is a wonder a real wonder that this company even exist today. and its a wonder AMD did license powerVR design instead of AMD one.
        PowerVR did die as a result of Apple. After Apple dropped them, their stock fell 70%. This is on their wiki btw. Apple also poached engineers and then had to license their stuff to make their GPU's work. PowerVR lives in Chinese limbo.
        in my point of view apple should license RDNA3 amd design because their PowerVR design is not a competive gpu design.
        Maybe but I don't think AMD will sell their design but instead their chips. There's a reason why Nvidia had issues with Apple because Apple was digging too much into their design. They knew that Apple was looking to learn from Nvidia. PowerVR was the victim and lost a lot of their core engineers to Apple. Engineers that have been at PowerVR for over 10 years. That's gonna hurt any company.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
          They sold their entire mobile graphics to Qualcomm because AMD spent a lot in buying ATI. They're not actively selling their tech to Qualcomm. That was a one time deal.
          the one time deal is long time ago ... at that time RDNA did not exist... but Qualcomm did license RDNA to...
          also you forget about the fact that amd only did sell obsolete gpu tech to qualcomm gpu tech without any future.
          this gpu tech is older than ATI VLIW5D Architecture means HD2900,,, and even older than 2007 the ATI/AMD deal was made at the time of HD3850 gpu card ...

          Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
          That all resorted into this. Notice the chips are separate and not combined. AMD will sell chips not designs.

          this intel cpu and amd gpu multi package design was only a very short period of time.
          and intel did buy the AMD GPU patent rights without this patent deal intel could not made any gpu.

          intel did not buy a design what a big mistake because their intel ARC design is a complete desaster.

          Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
          I wonder why when they're using VIA's x86 design. The AMD stuff is more expensive.
          ​​
          thats a different deal with different companies involed and performs maybe better because they licensed a complete design instead of just AMD CPU IP and Patens...

          Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
          Someone isn't self aware.
          thats not up to you to decide...

          Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
          AMD could but Apple I'm sure didn't, at least not for mobile. Remember it was Apple who didn't go with AMD, not the other way around. Up until Apple built their own Silicon, they did use AMD's GPUs for their laptops and desktops. But yea, you're starting to get the idea here in that AMD sold their obsolete tech to Qualcomm, and yet Qualcomm is still making it work. Obviously Apple is pushing Qualcomm to seek out AMD for their new RDNA tech. We have yet to see how this will work out.
          i think apple only did not do license amd design because prior to the RDNA design amds design was to power consuming.
          and RDNA2 is to young in years even if apple would already licensed it it would take years to land in an apple product.

          https://nanoreview.net/en/soc-compar...dragon-8-gen-1

          its the Samsung Exynos 2200 SOC with Samsung Xclipse 920 GPU with RDNA2
          agaist the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 SOC vs Adreno 730GPU

          the main difference you can see is Adreno 730 has only 818 MHz and the RDNA2 one has 1300 MHz

          but the samsung with rdna2 one ahs lower CPU clock because of this many benchmarks suffer because of the cpu.

          the complete benchmark could be biased agaist the samsung chip: "Developers optimize games for Snapdragon processors more often than for Exynos"

          Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
          Yea as in way back.
          PowerVR was available on PC back in 2020 and failed because Geforce 256 and Radeon 7200 was better and faster. So Imagination pulled out and focused on mobile where there's no competition. When iPhone was released, it breathed new financial life into PowerVR.
          you mean 2000 and not 2020... and man i had such a gpu card... it did not fail because of better and faster.

          i did bring the gpu back to the shop and get my money back because the gpu only supported 256mb ram and my pc had already 512mb ram. at that time with my pentium 3 with 450mhz. this means these POWERVR gpus has massive design flaws a complete failure.

          it was not about "better and faster"... but yes the competition was better and faster but thats not the point.

          you can not sell a gpu with only 256mb ram support if the standard in the market is already 512mb ram.


          Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
          PowerVR's title based rendering doesn't need as much VRAM as other GPU's. The failure was that ATI and Nvidia was still faster, had more features, and much better driver support.
          bach in the year 2000 did you have such a GPU? because i had one... it worked if i plugged 50% of my ram out of the computer.

          the first PowerVR gpus had hardware design flaw limiting the maximum ram in your compoter to 256mb..

          Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
          PowerVR did die as a result of Apple. After Apple dropped them, their stock fell 70%. This is on their wiki btw. Apple also poached engineers and then had to license their stuff to make their GPU's work. PowerVR lives in Chinese limbo.
          man you have a strong world view... if PowerVR fail because they build gpus who only support 256mb ram then you think this will not hurt the company but if apple want to drop PowerVR then it is a crime in your worldview.

          i tell you something PowerVR failed in the free market the free market you always talk about i was there in the year 2000 i did buy such a card it did not work on my pc only if i plug out 50% of my ram to limit the ram to only 256 mb...

          you glorify this company "PowerVR" only because apple did drop them LOL maybe apple did drop them because they where a complete failure.

          Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post

          Maybe but I don't think AMD will sell their design but instead their chips.

          this does not work in the SOC world.

          Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post

          There's a reason why Nvidia had issues with Apple because Apple was digging too much into their design. They knew that Apple was looking to learn from Nvidia. PowerVR was the victim and lost a lot of their core engineers to Apple. Engineers that have been at PowerVR for over 10 years. That's gonna hurt any company.
          did you ever had any PowerVR GPU card ? because i did buy one back in the 2000 years...

          apple did not hurt this company they did hurt and failed on the free market.

          you can not sell gpu cards who only support 256mb ram if the customers computer already have 512 mb ram.
          Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by qarium View Post
            this intel cpu and amd gpu multi package design was only a very short period of time.
            That's about as much as Intel will get from AMD.
            and intel did buy the AMD GPU patent rights without this patent deal intel could not made any gpu.
            Got any proof?
            intel did not buy a design what a big mistake because their intel ARC design is a complete desaster.
            Raja Koduri has spoken and ARC isn't going anywhere. Nobody expects the first iteration to be perfect or even good.
            https://wccftech.com/divesting-axg-i...of-the-future/
            https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...aphics.298771/
            thats not up to you to decide...
            My nickname is also Judgebringer and it's very much up to me. You've long been judged poorly. You spew what comes from the heart and not from the head. Apple in the server market indeed. If you don't own Apple products then you have a shrine of Steve Jobs.
            i think apple only did not do license amd design because prior to the RDNA design amds design was to power consuming.
            and RDNA2 is to young in years even if apple would already licensed it it would take years to land in an apple product.
            Apple has made it clear they want to be independent when it comes to making their tech. They didn't use AMD because they want to be self sufficient.
            https://nanoreview.net/en/soc-compar...dragon-8-gen-1

            its the Samsung Exynos 2200 SOC with Samsung Xclipse 920 GPU with RDNA2
            agaist the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 SOC vs Adreno 730GPU

            the main difference you can see is Adreno 730 has only 818 MHz and the RDNA2 one has 1300 MHz

            but the samsung with rdna2 one ahs lower CPU clock because of this many benchmarks suffer because of the cpu.

            the complete benchmark could be biased agaist the samsung chip: "Developers optimize games for Snapdragon processors more often than for Exynos"
            I'll wait for good reviews before passing judgement. Samsung hasn't been able to compete with Qualcomm and that's why they still use Qualcomm chips. Considering that in the past Samsung used Mali, the Mali graphics aren't that bad.
            you mean 2000 and not 2020... and man i had such a gpu card... it did not fail because of better and faster.
            Yes and yes it did. Geforce 256 and ATI Radeon were not only faster but had hardware T&L. Eventually the Kyro II had to compete against Geforce 3's and Radeon 8500's with programmable shaders and renderers. It simply got outclassed. Keep in mind that AMD's RDNA2 on the Exynos may be able to do Ray-Tracing while Adreno, Mali, and Apple can't.
            man you have a strong world view... if PowerVR fail because they build gpus who only support 256mb ram then you think this will not hurt the company but if apple want to drop PowerVR then it is a crime in your worldview.
            It's not a crime but a shame. We have one less competition in the GPU market, even though it's for mobile.
            you glorify this company "PowerVR" only because apple did drop them LOL maybe apple did drop them because they where a complete failure.
            PowerVR was ahead of Nvidia when it came to Ray-Tracing. They still are. Apple absorbed as much as they could from Imagination and we're no better off for it.



            did you ever had any PowerVR GPU card ? because i did buy one back in the 2000 years...

            apple did not hurt this company they did hurt and failed on the free market.

            you can not sell gpu cards who only support 256mb ram if the customers computer already have 512 mb ram.
            Stop justifying Apple's anti-consumer behavior. We are not better off because Apple has a GPU. They could have continued to use PowerVR but Apple's greed was stronger, and their billions of dollars. Keep in mind Linux has working PowerVR drivers, and unlike Apple they do donate code to keep them working.
            Last edited by Dukenukemx; 14 September 2022, 02:29 AM.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
              That's about as much as Intel will get from AMD.
              Got any proof?

              thats for outsiders not so easy because intel and amd have cross licensing patent agreement for many years.
              https://spectrum.ieee.org/intel-pays...on#toggle-gdpr
              in the past this cross liensing covered only CPU and not GPU and not APU
              intel did pay to nvidia for patents in use of their iGPUs
              then AMD and Intel did an expansion of their cross lizensing to now cover APU and GPU Patents and intel did quit the deal with nvidia.
              this deal was made in 2018... it was directly after this EMIB combination with intel cpu and amd gpu happened.
              intel then after the patent deal did stop this https://newsroom.intel.com/editorial...ces/#gs.buf3up

              https://wccftech.com/intel-allegedly...icensing-deal/
              https://wccftech.com/intel-reportedl...sis-dissected/

              "the moral of the story is that cross licensing agreements are big and complicated things,"

              yes the cross licensing agreemnt between intel and amd is very complicated...
              but you can be sure the nvidia deal endet in 2017... and its clear intel could not make gpus without a gpu deal with AMD.-.
              there is money flow from intel to amd...

              but any details are in fact trade secrets. the orginal deal was made in a way that intel also buys gpu chips from intel but intel did quit this part.
              i think intel did this to avoid making advertisment for amd...


              Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
              Raja Koduri has spoken and ARC isn't going anywhere. Nobody expects the first iteration to be perfect or even good.
              https://wccftech.com/divesting-axg-i...of-the-future/
              https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...aphics.298771/
              thats good news but the first generation (in real the second generation) has 3 chips on 6nm... their second generation on 5nm battemage codename was first planed to be also 3 chips low-end midrange and highend but now it looks like they only will do 1 single chip.
              they admited they are unable to manage 3 different chips at the same time now they want to go with just one chip and focus fheir driver team on one chip. its a low-end to midrange chip with maybe 8gb vram... and maybe the performance of a 6700xt...

              there are also already benchmarks of the intel arc a770 and it does not look good.


              https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compar...3933vsm1850973

              My vega64 is 52% faster than the a770... so for me is clear intel has not a big enough driver team to handle 3 chips at the same time they are better of make only 1 chip at a time and improve the driver for future generations.

              Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post

              My nickname is also Judgebringer and it's very much up to me. You've long been judged poorly. You spew what comes from the heart and not from the head. Apple in the server market indeed. If you don't own Apple products then you have a shrine of Steve Jobs.
              i do not have a single apple product. and i do not have a shrine of steve jobs.
              you claim you are in favor of competition and as soon apple is the competition you dislike it.

              i did found for [email protected] an cheap and performant ARM soc we maybe will see benchmarks soon.
              https://www.amazon.de/RUPA-St%C3%A4r...C5%BD%C3%95%C3 %91&crid=16ANGNEZ2J5RC&keywords=Rockchip+RK3588&qi d=1663110161&sprefix=rockchip+rk3588%2Caps%2C78&sr =8-3

              you do not need to buy apple... pine64.org will sell this one with 16gb ram and even cheaper.

              Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post

              Apple has made it clear they want to be independent when it comes to making their tech. They didn't use AMD because they want to be self sufficient.
              this honestly makes no sense samsung did license RDNA2 for ARM SOCs and others like Qualcomm also go this road and apple has a PowerVR license but this makes no difference... tell me whats the difference ?


              Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post

              I'll wait for good reviews before passing judgement. Samsung hasn't been able to compete with Qualcomm and that's why they still use Qualcomm chips. Considering that in the past Samsung used Mali, the Mali graphics aren't that bad.
              for me its enough information to exopolate an judgment...
              the samsung chip with RDNA2 brings the same performance to the Qualcomm chip with Adreno gpu and this make the RDNA2 a winner i will explain to you why.
              if you get the same performance and on chip is at 1400mhz and the other chip is at 800mhz then the 800 chip needs more tranistors for the same result because the performance most of the time is the result of tranistors turn off or on 800 million times per hz the chip with higher frequency need less tranistors and compensate this with higher clock to get the same result.
              and thats the reason qualcomm goes with RDNA2/3 in the future compared to their andreno gpu chips. because they need less tranistors and this means less mm² chip die area.
              and physically i know the math because i learned electronic and electric i can tell you to manage a 1400mhz chip to be the same power consuming as a 800mhz chip is really awesome.
              i think the adreno chip similar to apples powervr chip has the same problem less clock speed and less features like raytracing and with RDNA3 new the aI compute units to accelerate FSR3.0 similar to the AI unit who does accelerate DLSS2.x in nvidia cards.

              you did say it multible times that the apple m1/m2 notebooks have no advantage in gaming but we know already that if you have the AI chips to accelerate FSR3/DLSS2.x you save energy and get the competive performance because the game is redered at a lower resolution.

              and in my point of view this also gives us the answer why apple did not license RDNA or RDNA2.0 because the relevant tech to save energy will be in RDNA3...

              Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
              ​​
              Yes and yes it did. Geforce 256 and ATI Radeon were not only faster but had hardware T&L. Eventually the Kyro II had to compete against Geforce 3's and Radeon 8500's with programmable shaders and renderers. It simply got outclassed. Keep in mind that AMD's RDNA2 on the Exynos may be able to do Ray-Tracing while Adreno, Mali, and Apple can't.
              you still ignore the fact that these Kyro I/II gpu cards had big hardware design flaws. i did not bring it back because nvidia or ati was faster or had more features i did bring it back because my computer had 512mb ram and the card only suppoted 256mb ram

              but aside from that they could not compete on the free market ... the reason why is it hardware T&L or what is it is from today point of view not relevant...

              "Keep in mind that AMD's RDNA2 on the Exynos may be able to do Ray-Tracing while Adreno, Mali, and Apple can't.[/QUOTE]"

              right i see the RDNA2 in mobile ARM SOCs as a big winner it need less tranistors because of high clock speed the adreno maybe brings the same result but it need much more tranistors for the same result.
              also the RDNA2 has hardware acceleration for raytracing. Adreno and mali and apple powervr chips are inferior technology.

              i think apple will license RDNA3 for apple M3/M4 socks beause RDNA3 will have hardware AI acceleration for the FSR3.0 similar to DLSS2.x...

              and this will also fix your low gaming battery time problem. because lower the render resolution is the only way to save the battery in a signifikant way.

              Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
              ​​
              It's not a crime but a shame. We have one less competition in the GPU market, even though it's for mobile.
              PowerVR was ahead of Nvidia when it came to Ray-Tracing. They still are. Apple absorbed as much as they could from Imagination and we're no better off for it.
              as far as i know powervr hardware has no hardware acceleration for raytracing and also no hardware acceleration for FSR/DLSS...

              Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
              ​​
              Stop justifying Apple's anti-consumer behavior. We are not better off because Apple has a GPU. They could have continued to use PowerVR but Apple's greed was stronger, and their billions of dollars. Keep in mind Linux has working PowerVR drivers, and unlike Apple they do donate code to keep them working.
              apple gpu's do not have an relevant technology advantage.. i think RDNA3 is superior higher clocks and hardware accelerated raytracing and FSR3.0...

              so why do you think i do justifiy anything from apple ? i only give a honest advice to apple: drop PowerVR gpus and go with RDNA3 gpu.

              "Keep in mind Linux has working PowerVR drivers"

              in the last 20 years the trend was the losers do linux support... it was creative sound plaster you remember ? microsoft did screw the up by making any creative sound plaster incompatible with windows vista... then creative sound plaster company did strike back by developing linux drivers.

              this is similar to PowerVR.. they do not do it because they are the "winners" in the game they do it because they are losers and this is the only option left to stay relevant.
              Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
                PowerVR was ahead of Nvidia when it came to Ray-Tracing. They still are. Apple absorbed as much as they could from Imagination and we're no better off for it.

                some examples look good some other examples look ugly...

                I did check all of these products: "PowerVR G6200Entfernen
                PowerVR G6430(0) PowerVR GE8100(0) PowerVR GE8300(0) PowerVR GE8320(10) PowerVR GE8322(0) PowerVR GM9446(0) PowerVR GT7600(0) PowerVR GX6450(0) PowerVR SGX530(0) PowerVR SGX531(0) PowerVR SGX531 Ultra(0) PowerVR SGX540(0) PowerVR SGX543MP2(0) PowerVR SGX543MP3(0) PowerVR SGX544(0) PowerVR SGX544MP2(0)​"

                and the fastest and best was this one:

                PowerVR GE8320 650mhz (DirectX 10, OpenGL 3.x, 4.x, OpenGL ES 3.0)

                on a Mediatek Helio G37​ SOC....

                it looks like PowerVR chips are not competive in the market. only 650mhz compared to 1400mhz on RDNA2 and only dx10 compared to dx12 on the AMD one.

                and if i search for PowerVR 6XT GR6500

                ​i do not find any results.
                Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

                Comment

                Working...
                X