No announcement yet.

Open ATI Driver More Popular Than Catalyst

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Kano View Post
    Some have got pink ATI glasses on and see the bright future - others are more realistic and buy what CURRENTLY works. The biggest problem are just laptops, there you can not fix a wrong decision without losing lots of money... Also nvidia chips are really rare on the budget market or much more expensive like when you compare intel netbooks and ion. Next jan 11th will be the final day for other Intel onboard solutions as the new cpus will have got a built-in gfx core. Hopefully libva intel will support h264 soon (and best don't stop there and advance to vc1).

    Perhaps, the OSS ATI driver works well... for some. Overall, it might work fine. But, there seems to be issues for both types of drivers. When you factor in the various ages of cards, whether they are much older or recent in design, you have to consider whether one will be continued to be supported and how well that support will be. Imho, there is a glaring lack of consistency throughout the entire sphere of ATI support. I try to find posts about open driver support for older cards and performance in 3D. But, then I come upon discussions on newer cards than mine but they are still legacy ATI cards now. Or it will be more modern ATI cards that users are trying the OSS driver with. What strikes me is all the confusion over which driver to use for some of these users and what works and what doesn't. I know the card in my laptop is outdated and old but I know it can handle basic 3D but then I try super recent distros and some can't even boot properly. When I try to enable 3D, I get lockups or failures to enable.

    This might sound trivial to some but from my perspective, it lowers the confidence one would have in ATI support as a whole. Human nature, if you ask me. I like the idea of OSS support but I look for current state of support and the potential or long-term picture can have some impact if it means I might have problems down the road.

    Sorry for being so lenghy. I could have probably summarized all of that or been more brief but I feel I made some valid points even though I'm not a knowledgable expert like others seem to be. I am just offering my two cents but some posters here provide very interesting perspectives, from both angles.


    • #92
      Originally posted by Qaridarium
      you wana see information???

      you wana see real MANN's Engine?

      but yes ArmA2 will never ever run on Xbox360/PS3

      Real Game engine for REAL Computers not Toys like xbox bullshit!
      Yes, I would like to see information, not advertising for your favourite game. Unless your favourite game happens to run on the open source radeon drivers, in which case go nuts.


      • #93
        Originally posted by Qaridarium
        Real Game engine for REAL Computers not Toys like xbox bullshit!
        Aside from the incomprehensibility of most of your English, you do realize that you sound like a 13 year old fanboy idiot, right?


        • #94
          you realize that several of Arma2's screenies look like pre-rendered graphics ?

          I'm not impressed to say the least

          show some extensive environmental screenies of both engines then we can start to talk


          you're offtopic !


          • #95
            Well, I decided to test some weeks ago the xorg-video-ati driver and I was so pleased with the 2D performance that I don't mind losing some 3D functionallity if my desktop applications will work more smoothly, so I didn't switch back to fglrx.

            Games? Street Fighter IV doesn't work in wine yet, so I don't mind rebooting to Windows when I want to play.

            PD: what's this outbreak of trolling and off-topic? Generally these forums are peaceful and a good place to read some good discussions (yeah, I'm a lurker).


            • #96
              Originally posted by BassKnight View Post
              PD: what's this outbreak of trolling and off-topic? Generally these forums are peaceful and a good place to read some good discussions (yeah, I'm a lurker).
              Yeah, please take game engine flame wars elsewhere, we wanna read about experiences with different ATI drivers here.


              • #97
                Originally posted by glock24 View Post
                The only reason I still use the fglrx driver is power management. The radeon driver, even with all power saving options enabled, consumes 5-10W more than fglrx on my Mobility HD3650, and of coruse, temps go high and battery drains faster.

                3D performance is not relevant to me under Linux, as I use it mainly for work and movie watching. Recreational activities (eg. games) are left to another OS.

                2D performance is better on radeon, but as I mentioned before, power management is more important to me.
                Originally posted by dgrafenhofer View Post
                Same situation over here. I am aMobility HD3650 Laptop user too.
                +1. And since I'm a Mobility X1600 user with a "legacy" HP NC8430 laptop I have settled with Debian Lenny whose fglrx still has working power management (judging from some comments the version has to be max 9.1, since 9.2 and 9.3 broke the power management for my card).

                Since it's a laptop there's no possibility to upgrade without buying a new one. And I think I'll stick to Lenny until I read some breaking news on KMS power management on Phoronix's site.


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Qaridarium
                  ArmA2 :


                  1500 KI Battle (air,land(tanks and trups),ship):
                  I know what Arma2 is. It is a buggy POS. It has good large maps. Wow. Now let's look at how much detail every map is? Yeah... that. The power of id Tech 5 lies within its unlimited amount of detail and different textures. Arma2 doesn't have that.

                  Secondly; id Tech 5 doesn't require such ridiculous amount of processing power to achieve that, with more graphical effects.

                  PS: Arma2's AI sucks:

                  Originally posted by Qaridarium
                  the informationn is... there is no IDtech5-game-ready to test!!!!!! ''

                  and the information is: idtech5 can not handle a game like ArmA2.....'
                  but the engine of arma2 can handle a game like "rage"
                  Arma2's engine can't run Rage simply because it can't load 32GB textures into the RAM.
                  id Tech 5 can handle 32GB of texture because it streams it from the HDD.
                  So uhm... id Tech 5 can handle Arma2, but Arma2's engine can't handle Rage.

                  IDtech5 is an game engine for xbox360 and playstation3 nothing more !
                  id Tech 5 is cross platform, so it can run on every platform: Ps3, Xbox360, Windows, Linux and Mac OS X. Arma2's engine only runs on Windows if you pray to God it doesn't crash from all of its show stopping bugs. What is your problem?

                  And now let's look at your last post. What I am seeing is nothing but higher detailed artwork. Depth of field is the only cool effect I can see and id Tech 5 has it too. Now what else does this engine bring to the table? I can't see anything fancy.

                  This all leads me to the conclusion that you know nothing about 3D graphics. Hands down.
                  Last edited by V!NCENT; 09 December 2009, 07:22 AM.


                  • #99
                    enough's enough, stop the trolling, move the engine discussions to another thread.


                    • Well do you see Arma2 running on Linux? You never get something right - really. Id Tech 5 will be definitely the best multiplatform engine that will most likely get a Linux port, can you say this for your example too? wine with d3d emulation might be possible but thats like slowing down the speed from f1 racer to a truck.