Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benchmarks Of AMD's Newest Gallium3D Driver

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

  • HokTar
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    Nope, you're right... although if we're going to stay "caught up" there's not going to be a *lot* of free time between generations.
    Sometimes you show your admirable skill in not answering a question. Not to mention that I never said "a lot".

    Plus I had the wild guess that the desktop apu will be based on evergreen or ni thus enabling it might not take much more than for ontario, i.e. a few hundred lines.
    If this assumption turns out to be correct then there would be two devs with little to no work for months. So yes, maybe that would be a *lot* of free time.

    Anyway, if Alex or Richard will have some free time then my question will get answered, I guess.

    Leave a comment:


  • chrisr
    replied
    Can you elaborate on this glitching issue, please?

    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    Other than not being enabled by default, are you seeing problems with dynpm ? My recollection was that the "glitching" issue was largely fixed a month or two ago...
    Can you remember what was done to fix this "glitching" issue, please? E.g. was it in the kernel, the driver, or Mesa? Because I was noticing some glitchy behaviour with the 2.6.36.1 kernel and xorg-drv-ati from git recently (HD4890).

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    Nope, you're right... although if we're going to stay "caught up" there's not going to be a *lot* of free time between generations.

    Leave a comment:


  • HokTar
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    Top priority for the AMD devs is enabling support for new GPU generations (via code and/or docs) and supporting community devs, which are the things that pretty much have to be done in house. When time permits, the devs also work on improving existing support (Alex wrote the initial EXA and Textured Video code, along with initial power management and a bunch of other things, Richard added GLSL and flow control support) but only when time permits.

    Other than not being enabled by default, are you seeing problems with dynpm ? My recollection was that the "glitching" issue was largely fixed a month or two ago, and the remaining TODO task (splitting the code so that memory and engine clocks are changed in different blanking periods) could be done by anyone.
    Whenever I tried it did not lowered the clock/voltage. Manually setting it to low works fine.

    I think I have a fairly good understanding of the current methodology, i.e. you enable drivers than the community enhances it. I dared to ask that question because it seems that only the NI chips are left and the desktop APU is still far away. So my thinking was that in the next few months you might have some free time to help out here and there. Maybe I am completely wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    Originally posted by HokTar View Post
    Anyway, I suspect that having good h264 decoding possibilities and an efficient dynpm would significantly reduce the whining and the "what if" comments. Opengl and cl would still remain but we could have a good everyday driver. Are these on your short-term list? Maybe even helping out Christian Konig. Well, one can dream, I guess.
    Top priority for the AMD devs is enabling support for new GPU generations (via code and/or docs) and supporting community devs, which are the things that pretty much have to be done in house. When time permits, the devs also work on improving existing support (Alex wrote the initial EXA and Textured Video code, along with initial power management and a bunch of other things, Richard added GLSL and flow control support) but only when time permits.

    Other than not being enabled by default, are you seeing problems with dynpm ? My recollection was that the "glitching" issue was largely fixed a month or two ago, and the remaining TODO task (splitting the code so that memory and engine clocks are changed in different blanking periods) could be done by anyone.

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    ???

    In cases where the feature implementation is relatively OS-independent (ie where code *can* be shared across OSes) I believe the Linux and Windows versions of Catalyst *do* have the same features (eg OpenGL, OpenCL).

    In cases where the implementation is OS-dependent or DRM is a factor (video decode acceleration, Eyefinity on older X version, even suspend/resume), ie where the code has to be pretty much re-implemented from scratch for Linux, the features on Linux can lag. Those features tend not to be a high priority for the workstation market though, so the model works OK.

    For in-between things (where some of the code has to be re-implemented but not all, eg power management) there has been a lag but not so much these days.

    Leave a comment:


  • HokTar
    replied
    As if fglrx delivers the same features as catalyst...


    Sorry, I am not a troll, but this one was shouting for such a reply.

    Anyway, I suspect that having good h264 decoding possibilities and an efficient dynpm would significantly reduce the whining and the "what if" comments. Opengl and cl would still remain but we could have a good everyday driver. Are these on your short-term list? Maybe even helping out Christian Konig. Well, one can dream, I guess.

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    I know the obvious response at this point will be "but if you moved the Catalyst for Linux developers to the open source driver then you could have GL4 etc...", but that's not how it works. We develop the Catalyst driver code and share it across 100% of the PC market (ie all OSes), but if we moved the devs who make that common code available on Linux to working on the open source driver then they would not be able to leverage the work done for all of the other OSes, ie they would be working on a Linux-specific code base, and the same number of developers would *not* be able to deliver the same level of features and performance.

    Put simply, open source drivers share code across HW vendors (ie the intel, radeon and nouveau driver stacks share a lot of common code, which is why they have similar features) while proprietary drivers share code across OSes.

    Leave a comment:


  • pingufunkybeat
    replied
    Well, I'd prefer that too, but AMD is after the professional workstation market, and as long as Mesa, drm, Gallium, and the related infrastructure can't provide OpenGL4 and similar stuff, I don't expect AMD to drop Catalyst for Linux.

    Leave a comment:


  • xiando
    replied
    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    It's not 100 full-time people working on the LINUX part of Catalyst, it's 100 (or more) full-time people working on Catalyst in general, most of which is shared between Windows, Linux, BSD and OSX.

    The Linux support for Catalyst drivers is obviously not the main focus of the AMD driver developers, the vast majority goes into improving Windows performance, and Linux gets these improvements for free.

    It's not very likely that AMD would give up WINDOWS drivers (Catalyst) just so they can put all the people to work on Linux drivers. It's not going to happen.
    How many of these 100 drones are working on the Linux part? If just 5 of them are doing so and these drones were moved into free driver development then that would obviously help the free drivers somewhat.

    I would prefer this since I don't use the non-free Catalyst, but I do see why the AMD shareholders could prefer that these drones continiue to work on the evil binary blob driver.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X