Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Graphics Will Change In The Linux 3.10 Kernel

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

  • bwat47
    replied
    I still get random IRQ storms/livelock sometimes when suspend/resume with this kernel. In fact it seems to happen even more often with kernel 3.10 than it did with previous ones :/ very annoying.

    Leave a comment:


  • schmidtbag
    replied
    Anybody know how to lower the maximum turbo frequency? The GPU setting itself to maximum speed causes problems on my laptop when running on battery.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kivada
    replied
    Originally posted by AJenbo View Post
    Display-less GPU support might be for Optimus support in cases where the output is on the Nvidia card.
    Makes great sense if you have something with the HD4000 or an AMD APU and a dedicated GPU to use that IGP as a dedicated OpenCL processor. Now all we need is software to make use of it. Lets see if the OSS game devs have the sense to add OpenCL physics to their engines.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Intel gpu will use less powe than nvidia. even if nvidia is being used for modesetting the 3d engine can be turned off.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ericg
    replied
    Originally posted by AJenbo View Post
    Display-less GPU support might be for Optimus support in cases where the output is on the Nvidia card.
    But at that point why not just run everything off the Nvidia GPU? Cuz you'd have to keep it on at all times anyway to power the display.

    Leave a comment:


  • AJenbo
    replied
    Display-less GPU support might be for Optimus support in cases where the output is on the Nvidia card.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ericg
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    It was because 2.6 was a rolling release model. he could have kept it rolling, but the numbering system never really did make sense, so it was just an arbitrary change to make the release numbering make more sense.
    Oh I know duby, I know he just changed them cuz they were getting out of hand. I'm just having a little fun with the whole thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    It was because 2.6 was a rolling release model. he could have kept it rolling, but the numbering system never really did make sense, so it was just an arbitrary change to make the release numbering make more sense. basically 2.6.0 should have been 3.0 from the beginning.
    Last edited by duby229; 19 April 2013, 05:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ericg
    replied
    Originally posted by frign View Post
    Who else thought 3.10 would actually be 4.0?
    I'm kind of wondering when he'll get tired of the version numbers again. Last time he stopped it at 2.6.39.

    Maybe he'll stop it at after its all the same number <_< like 3.33 then the next release is 4.0 then it'll go till 4.44 then next release will be 5.0

    Leave a comment:


  • frign
    replied
    Who else thought 3.10 would actually be 4.0?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X