AMD's UVD2-based XvBA Finally Does Something On Linux

[gbeauche]

Enlighten me please. I am not seeing any proper linux support from nvidia neither. Oh yes, their binary blob is kinda good. But thats only because of their shared codebase with windows. Well fglrx uses the "same" kind of shared codebase, but they also got the oss drivers.

The NVIDIA/VDPAU driver is genuine, it's not a wrapper around the Windows module or code base. Some postproc algorithms are even different. The AMD/XvBA driver is "simply" a wrapper around the Windows driver. If you read around the forums, I am sure you can obviously see which of those works best. There are other examples but I can't go into greater details.

What do you mean by "I am not seeing any proper linux support from nvidia neither"? OSS is not a reason, so why do you say so? I personally don't care if the driver is proprietary. I just want it to work correctly with the claimed features. i.e. if I pay for a GPU with certain features, I want to use them. Otherwise, either I buy something else or I have to get the GPU for a seriously discounted price to compensate the claimed features that are not available (properly) to Linux...

[Kano]

Good find, your card is faster. Only very few ppl would buy a GT220 for gaming - i only got it to watch hd movies, even a G210 would be enough for that - but this card i got for free and a G210 i would need to buy, so what would you have used then?

[mugginz]

you can't compare a slow gtx220 to an fast 4670!

Yes, sadly this is true. The GT 220 will work as advertised and the 4670 will have a laundry list of issues due to its drivers.

(sorry, just couldn't resist. )

[Panix]

then you also can delete your Linux/bsd/opensolaris and use Windows7!

its funny to talk to non foss people they do not unterstand foss at all.

FOSS or no FOSS, I want FULL functioning of the card and optimized drivers. If there is a huge DISCREPANCY of what it can do in Windows versus what it can do in Linux, then there is a *serious* problem.

I'm sorry, but, Windows is the benchmark or at least the measuring tool. It's a fact of life. These cards are made with Windows in mind, unfortunately, but no one should have to wait years for driver support to catch up (to the release of the card). It seems that both the binary driver and FOSS driver both are NOT optimized and missing features or having serious issues which effect use/enjoyment of the card in Linux. So, who gives a crap about FOSS v.s. binary blob in this case?!? I'm fine with being an idealist until I can't do what I wish to do and other people should be able to do what they want with their cards (assuming the card is capable and the driver should allow it to happen). Just because your FOSS driver allows you to do whatever you want, shouldn't mean that all support or investment for the EVIL binary driver should be scrapped or neglected.

If the FOSS driver could be all and end all, then fine but it doesn't.

There is talk of Linux support with ATI and on their AMD/ATI website, there is mention of particular distros the fglrx driver is supported in, but then when you go to real life actual day-to-day function, you come across that *this* doesn't work and *that* doesn't work. The X.Org is too recent or the kernel has changed so now it doesn't work again. Or this feature did't work and still doesn't work or maybe now that function is broken. How is this support?

The wait is too long. Just appeasing workstation clients or racing to support them is not acceptable. There are other customers. There are a lot of ATI cards that are expensive. Some people might consider anything $100 and up, expensive. Maybe ATI figures to just concentrate on the Windows and Worstation markets is sufficient and the utmost priority. Then don't preach go with ATI and FOSS! Have some sense.

[Hans]

The NVIDIA/VDPAU driver is genuine, it's not a wrapper around the Windows module or code base. Some postproc algorithms are even different. The AMD/XvBA driver is "simply" a wrapper around the Windows driver. If you read around the forums, I am sure you can obviously see which of those works best. There are other examples but I can't go into greater details.

What do you mean by "I am not seeing any proper linux support from nvidia neither"? OSS is not a reason, so why do you say so? I personally don't care if the driver is proprietary. I just want it to work correctly with the claimed features. i.e. if I pay for a GPU with certain features, I want to use them. Otherwise, either I buy something else or I have to get the GPU for a seriously discounted price to compensate the claimed features that are not available (properly) to Linux...

Well I do care if it is oss or not. Not because I am fanatic or anything like it. But I will try making you to see my point.

If we didn't care, why not also make our sound drivers proprietary? What about the network card drivers? I don't think we should take oss drivers for granted, because without them linux wouldn't be what it is today. One could say that having only the gfx driver proprietary, is something we could live with (I do). But I would not like it if linux would become the same kind of proprietary driver hell as in windows (It would if everyone did the same as nvidia).

Thats why I think AMD/ATI is doing the right thing making oss drivers, and in the end supporting linux's OSS environment. Everyone should do that, because its the right way of doing things in linux.

[mugginz]

Well I do care if it is oss or not. Not because I am fanatic or anything like it.

Well I'd prefer an OSS solution, but when a viable and full featured one isn't available, a proprietary one will do.

In about 8 hours I'll be purchasing a video card for a HTPC and want to choose ATI but how can I in the face of all the issues people are reporting with respect to drivers from both sides o the fence?

[Hans]

Well I'd prefer an OSS solution, but when a viable and full featured one isn't available, a proprietary one will do.

In about 8 hours I'll be purchasing a video card for a HTPC and want to choose ATI but how can I in the face of all the issues people are reporting with respect to drivers from both sides o the fence?

Well thats the same reason I use the proprietary nvidia driver for my 7600 (We are in the same boat). But I also own a hd4650, which I use for opencl programming (Using the fglrx driver is a must right now due to my work). But I have tried the oss radeon driver, and it beats both the nvidia and fglrx driver in terms of desktop experience. I know they are not capable of doing advanced 3d graphic, but that time will come. I hope someday the they will also be capable of using opencl.

If you ask me the nvidia vs fglrx question, I will try to be as neutral as possible. I actually think they are pretty stable and good both of them. My 7600 has an issue with its powermanagement, which make my screen flash every time it changes clock on the card (I could use an oss driver here, because nvidia don't seem to fix the bug themselves). With fglrx I have to patch my xorg, to get the most out of the 2d acceleration (backclear patch).

My next card will probably be an AMD/ATI again, because of the oss driver and support. If the card doesn't have prober oss support, I can always "revert" to fglrx until support arrives. Fglrx isn't that bad.

[Hans]

EDIT:

@mugginz
Ohh I forgot.
A lot of the posts you hear about how bad fglrx is, is from nvidia users who don't got a clue. They haven't tried fglrx and are only posting because of somekind of fanboism or because they want to contribute to the amd/ati bashing.

Not that amd/ati fanboys are any better.

[mugginz]

EDIT:

@mugginz
Ohh I forgot.
A lot of the posts you hear about how bad fglrx is, is from nvidia users who don't got a clue. They haven't tried fglrx and are only posting because of somekind of fanboism or because they want to contribute to the amd/ati bashing.

Not that amd/ati fanboys are any better.

Well I try to do as good a job as possible at categorising the various sources of information. I guess we're all aware that a lot of people like to colour their points of "fact" with fanboi-ism. Even when throwing away a lot of dubious information, it still looks as though buying ATI is still asking for trouble when dealing with multi-media end-user use cases though.

I'm still not totally against going with an ATI card for HTPC. It would give me a bit of a personal window into what to expect if I was to buy the higher performance card for the desktop. I so want to use Eyefinity. I have four 24 inch screens of which I can only use two at the moment. nVidia provide awesome support for a two card system, but when you use multiple cards, you loose compositing and take a performance hit. While there is a work around for the loss of compositing with Xinerama enabled, it's not one I'd consider ideal by any means. ATI is the only vendor that produces a high performance solution for more than two screens under Linux at present.

If I do get the ATI card (against my better judgment) and their are issues, I will likely be very vocal about it indeed.

[mugginz]

the gt220 also have a long list of issues on an pure FOSS system!

the 2d-opensource nvidia driver do not have EXA,no Xv no 3d

the 3D opensource nvidia driver do not have powermanagment and only basic ogl1-3D...

The GT 220 will work though, and work reliably. It's no good having good hardware without good drivers.