Open ATI Driver More Popular Than Catalyst

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

  • BassKnight
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • kernelOfTruth
    replied
    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

    otherwise:

    you're offtopic !

    Leave a comment:


  • elanthis
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • mirv
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium
    you wana see information???

    you wana see real MANN's Engine?

    Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.



    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Panix
    replied
    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).
    Exactly.

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Panix
    replied
    Originally posted by Saist View Post
    Okay. Looks like you need to be put back into your place with a big helping of shut up, you don't know what your talking about. Again.
    Whatever. I think you should apologize to that other poster since you embarrassed yourself.

    I'm not sure how many older Nvidia cards there are in circulation but I don't notice tons of posts of Nvidia owners saying their card is not supported. They might be having some trouble setting it up because of the proprietary driver but the majority of complaints have been owners of older ATI cards.

    Second, this myth that everyone who wants 3D is a gamer has to stop. Someone just pointed out that they can't run Google Earth. It might be 3D and fancy but as far as I know, it's not a game.

    Third, there is this myth that the OSS driver works well. That depends on who you ask and what card it is. I can only speak for myself but the OSS radeon driver only works 100% with 2D. Only some distros have half decent 3D and many older cards only the choice of the open source driver unless you use a much older X version.

    Also, think the term 'popularity' is really reaching and with all due respect to the author, I am not sure I'd choose that wording. Some users are stuck with the open source driver whether they like it or not as it's not worth the time or inconvenience of going back to a previous X/X Server version. Yes, this is my opinion and I am sure it's not worth much but I think at least part of my perspective will be shared by some. I can't be the only frustrated old radeon card user out there.

    And lastly, I will hypothesize that many of the older video cards out there, especially laptops in particular, are older RADEON cards. Older Thinkpads, Dell Latitudes, HP and Toshibas often the Radeon 7500, 9000, 9600 and Express Radeon cards. The few Nvidias seem to be FX5200 or perhaps some 7xxx cards. I speculate that the Radeon owners will suffer the most from dropped support because of the numbers out there. Just a hunch.

    Leave a comment:


  • mirv
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium
    Why sould i think HIGH abaut a engine vor Xbox360/Playstation3 ?

    PC versions with id5 have bigger maps ok higher resolution ok?


    is IDTECH an super Hightech engine for Monster PCs 12cores,32gb ram,4GBvram 5890 overclocked????????

    not realy! Shame on ID!! IDtech5 is a FAIL!

    IDTech5 Talks abaut big maps... ARMA2 has big maps... 128X128Km

    Arma2 on "12cores,32gb ram,4GBvram 5890" locks much better than IDtech5 ever ever ever can be!
    Two things here.

    #1 - I really don't see where you're getting information from, but id tech 5 apparently doesn't use any more than dx9 level features, so I think you're overestimating the pc requirements just a tad.

    #2 - what the bloody hell does all that have to do with the open source radeon drivers being more popular than the catalysts?

    Leave a comment:


  • V!NCENT
    replied
    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    I'm not talking about visual side - only heard technical side is not so good.
    You heared... yeah right.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by Kano View Post
    Well MS wants additional 50 $/? each year when you want to be able to play against your friends online. You don't need that with a PS3. I think it is clear now
    I got ya. Understanding accomplished.

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Care to explain why? I'd rather have this engine see the light of day than the latest "look we got effects that nobody cares about" Crytek engine...
    I'm not talking about visual side - only heard technical side is not so good.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X