AMD RDNA2 Vulkan: RADV vs. RADV+NGGC vs. AMDVLK vs. PRO Driver Benchmarks

[user1]

All I'm trying to say is that open source drivers vs closed source drivers means nada for the average Linux user

As an average Linux user, I disagree. Binary blobs means higher likeliness of breakage on rolling release distributions and, as was the case with fglrx and is still is an issue with Nvidia binary blob, desktop screen tearing on X.org. Btw regarding driver issues, Nvidia has its own share of issues with their blob. For example, I hear a lot about regressions with their Vulkan driver on Linux.

[avem]

As an average Linux user, I disagree. Binary blobs means higher likeliness of breakage on rolling release distributions and, as was the case with fglrx and is still is an issue with Nvidia binary blob, desktop screen tearing on X.org. Btw regarding driver issues, Nvidia has its own share of issues with their blob. For example, I hear a lot about regressions with their Vulkan driver on Linux.

Your opinion is very valuable, yet absolute most people avoid rolling distros like a plague. You know, most people like to use computers, not be used by computers. Lastly rolling distros don't mean better graphics drivers. They might as well mean new regressions since QA/QC in Linux remains a joke.

Desktop tearing affects Intel/Radeon graphics as well, so there's no need to lie about a particular company, as it's a problem with Xorg:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/intel_graphics#Tearing

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AMDGPU#Tear_free_rendering

[avem]

Paid developers are part of the open source community. Everyone that participates is. The participation is the key point. Whether someone is paid or does it as a hobby is irrelevant.

As for complexity, GPU drivers are complex, but there are lots of other drivers and subsystems that are equally, if not more, complex. So they are not really unique in that sense.

Amazing how you've skipped the most important part of my comment. My point stands: openness/closeness means nada for the average Linux user as in both cases you're 100% dependent on the will of developers despite many proclaiming that open source graphics drivers are better by definition because they are "open" (source).

[user1]

Your opinion is very valuable, yet absolute most people avoid rolling distros like a plague. You know, most people like to use computers, not be used by computers. Lastly rolling distros don't mean better graphics drivers. They might as well mean new regressions since QA/QC in Linux remains a joke.

Desktop tearing affects Intel/Radeon graphics as well, so there's no need to lie about a particular company, as it's a problem with Xorg:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/intel_graphics#Tearing

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AMD...free_rendering

Well, at least according to Steam survey, the Arch family of distribution are one of the most popular. Regarding your second statement, "being used by computer" sounds like Windows, where you really have no control over you OS. Idk how you came up with this statement about rolling release distributions. Regarding QA, yes, on one hand you will less likely have breakage on fixed release distro, but there is a paradox here because the software itself may have user experience breaking bugs which will likely won't get fixed on fixed release disto because it will most likely not be updated on a certain fixed release. While on rolling release, since everything is updated, you will get the fix fast.

Regarding screen tearing, I've used AMD open source drivers on Linux since 2014 till today and I have never ever experienced any screen tearing on X.org, so I'm not lying. It IS a general problem with binary blobs though.

[agd5f]

Amazing how you've skipped the most important part of my comment. My point stands: openness/closeness means nada for the average Linux user as in both cases you're 100% dependent on the will of developers despite many proclaiming that open source graphics drivers are better by definition because they are "open" (source).

The points you are making seem unrelated in my mind. I took issue with your first point about the definition of the open source community. If someone doesn't care about open source vs. closed source, they are probably not participating in the community either since working on source is kind of what drives the open source community.

[avem]

Well, at least according to Steam survey, the Arch family of distribution are one of the most popular. Regarding your second statement, "being used by computer" sounds like Windows, where you really have no control over you OS. Idk how you came up with this statement about rolling release distributions. Regarding QA, yes, on one hand you will less likely have breakage on fixed release distro, but there is a paradox here because the software itself may have user experience breaking bugs which will likely won't get fixed on fixed release disto because it will most likely not be updated on a certain fixed release. While on rolling release, since everything is updated, you will get the fix fast.

Regarding screen tearing, I've used AMD open source drivers on Linux since 2014 till today and I have never ever experienced any screen tearing on X.org, so I'm not lying. It IS a general problem with binary blobs though.

It's amazing how you've equalled 10% of Linux users according to Steam HW survey to the "most popular". I don't count Manjaro because it's loosely based on Arch and if we go by this route you'll start calling Ubuntu and Mint Debian. The share is even less if we take into account online polls, e.g. this one: https://opensource.com/article/20/1/...x-distribution

I absolutely loved your second point. Basically you're saying if you're running Linux you're screwed regardless. Either bleeding edge bugs or stable bugs plus insufficient support.

[avem]

The points you are making seem unrelated in my mind. I took issue with your first point about the definition of the open source community. If someone doesn't care about open source vs. closed source, they are probably not participating in the community either since working on source is kind of what drives the open source community.

Lately Linux has been driven by companies with a commercial interest not "community". The things developed solely by "community" are in such a dire state it's not even worth talking about. Go check the lm-sensors project. Or how Bluetooth works for people using Linux. No companies backing these features. So much success.

[user1]

It's amazing how you've equalled 10% of Linux users according to Steam HW survey to the "most popular". I don't count Manjaro because it's loosely based on Arch and if we go by this route you'll start calling Ubuntu and Mint Debian. The share is even less if we take into account online polls, e.g. this one: https://opensource.com/article/20/1/...x-distribution

I absolutely loved your second point. Basically you're saying if you're running Linux you're screwed regardless. Either bleeding edge bugs or stable bugs plus insufficient support.

First, I didn't say it's the "most popular" and second, I really don't think some random internet poll that is based on votes is more accurate than Steam survey.

You really took my second point out of context, but I admit I should've been more clear. I was talking about the theoretical benefit of rolling release, not that this stuff happens often (both serious software bug or breakage).

Btw, there are some excellent rolling release distributions like Opensuse Tumbleweed, where pretty much the only chance of getting breakage is because of proprietary drivers. I'm running a Tumbleweed installation for a few months now and haven't experienced a single issue.

[agd5f]

Lately Linux has been driven by companies with a commercial interest not "community". The things developed solely by "community" are in such a dire state it's not even worth talking about. Go check the lm-sensors project. Or how Bluetooth works for people using Linux. No companies backing these features. So much success.

The community for a project is made up of the people that are actively working on it. Projects with fewer active participants generally make less progress than projects with more active participants.

[bridgman]

Amazing how you've skipped the most important part of my comment. My point stands: openness/closeness means nada for the average Linux user as in both cases you're 100% dependent on the will of developers despite many proclaiming that open source graphics drivers are better by definition because they are "open" (source).

I have to disagree with you here. I see a whole class of what you might call "power users" who benefit from having access to source code and commit history, either from being able to bisect to determine exactly where a regression problem on their system occurred, or from being able to work directly with a developer to "try this patch".

In both cases having open source effectively allows a degree of personalized support that has not been practical with closed-source code, making it possible for developers to quickly identify and fix problems that only appear on specific user systems.

Lately Linux has been driven by companies with a commercial interest not "community". The things developed solely by "community" are in such a dire state it's not even worth talking about. Go check the lm-sensors project. Or how Bluetooth works for people using Linux. No companies backing these features. So much success.

If by "lately" you mean "in the last 30 years" then I guess I agree, although not completely even in that case.

I don't think there have ever been a lot of cases where developers working in their spare time were able to start and maintain large projects - it can be done but it's very rough on the developer(s) - but what independent developers have done and continue to do is get projects through the "proof of concept" stage to the point where it makes sense for one or more companies to have their developers help with some of the heavy lifting.

It's also worth noting that a lot of the "company developers" working on a project used to be independent developers until they were hired by a company to continue working on the project with more time than they could devote working just as a hobby.