Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F1 2015: Don't Go Racing Yet With AMDGPU-Pro Or RadeonSI Gallium3D

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by marek View Post
    If the game developer doesn't care about non-nvidia drivers and the game really has a bug preventing it from working on other drivers (very likely since it only works on nvidia at the moment), it's a very bad situation for other vendors, because they will have to add workarounds for the game, which can complicate driver code, which can lead to compromising OpenGL conformance of those drivers.
    If it were only one OGL game, I would say that you are right. Since every OGL game is like that, then? We need a specific why. Only your GPUs have those problems, not Nvidia, not Intel, not mobile vendors and only for OGL.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by Qaridarium

      In my point of view and this means by my technical understanding the AMD cards means CGN1.0 and up are made for DX12/Vulkan/PS4-low-level-API all other stuff like DirectX11 and OpenGL is emulated in the driver ... and emulated means it is the source of why it is slow.

      so in fact if you want to develop for AMD cards and you want full speed you have to use Vulkan.

      everything else is forcing the GPU in emulation mode and slowness.
      If you emulate on the same level 1->1 makes sense. But when you targeting a lower level 1->0 it doesn't.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by artivision View Post
        If it were only one OGL game, I would say that you are right. Since every OGL game is like that, then? We need a specific why. Only your GPUs have those problems, not Nvidia, not Intel, not mobile vendors and only for OGL.
        I don't think that's actually the case. What you tend to find is NVidia drivers being loosest w.r.t OpenGL compliance, Mesa drivers (intel, amd, nouveau) being the tightest, with Catalyst Linux OpenGL being slightly looser than Mesa but not much.

        If you have examples of games running on Intel Mesa but not radeonsi Mesa I think the devs would want to hear about them.
        Test signature

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by bridgman View Post

          I don't think that's actually the case. What you tend to find is NVidia drivers being loosest w.r.t OpenGL compliance, Mesa drivers (intel, amd, nouveau) being the tightest, with Catalyst Linux OpenGL being slightly looser than Mesa but not much.

          If you have examples of games running on Intel Mesa but not radeonsi Mesa I think the devs would want to hear about them.
          I just said that per flop comparison all other vendors give 2x the OGL frame rate than your solution, for almost all OGL games. Why?

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post

            They make sure their games run when only a lower OpenGL revision is supported. Not sure if Feral only targets OpenGL 4.5 or if they even go so far to use proprietary NVidia OpenGL extensions.

            I was talking about Mesa in general which also means Intel, btw.



            Mesa these days has better OpenGL coverage than OSX. Feral manages to make their games work with OpenGL 4.1 under OSX but somehow not Linux.




            I once asked Feral support which OpenGL features were missing in Mesa for Alien Isolation to work. They pointed me to the FAQ and where it merely said "Only NVidia supported". Dicks.




            Which efforts? The entirety of Feral's Mesa driver "efforts" is this:



            Wow…
            - Aspyr and Valve only ported DX9C games to OpenGL 3.3. Feral have ported Grid Autosport to OpenGL3.3. Their other ports are DX11 games that needed at least 4.3. Now that Mesa have caught up, the games started to work. Remember when Metro LL was ported to Linux with less effects than Windows? That is what you get when you target lower versions of OpenGL;

            - They actually released F1 2015 only to Linux, because of that OpenGL 4.1 limitation on Mac;

            - And now these same dicks made Tomb Raider run with radeonsi. Official support. And even launched a patch to get extra performance from it. Bastards...

            - So they actually test OSS drivers (unlike a lot of other porters), make bug reports when they found ones, patch their games to better run with these drivers, and that's mean squat to you because of some response from a support guy? Wow..

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by artivision View Post

              I just said that per flop comparison all other vendors give 2x the OGL frame rate than your solution, for almost all OGL games. Why?
              Do they?

              NVidia has better GL performance because they turn off all the validation and just assume the game will run correctly, while AMD and Intel both actually watch for all the various error conditions and all the error checking slows things way down by making them CPU limited. That explains perfectly why Vulkan allows AMD to catch up - with Vulkan the validation is split out into a separate layer and turned off by default on all drivers.

              Do you have evidence that Intel or anyone other than Nvidia has better performance?

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by M@GOid View Post
                - And now these same dicks made Tomb Raider run with radeonsi. Official support. And even launched a patch to get extra performance from it. Bastards...
                Indeed, Valve has made sure their games run on Intel, which tends to make things run on the other Mesa drivers as well, but it really seems like they don't care about radeonsi at all. The whole way they load games in Steam is horribly broken with radeonsi, and they seem perfectly content with that situation, preferring to stick to supporting Catalyst only for all their games. Aspyr has had plenty of their own issues as well.

                The situation with this game should have been handled better, IMHO. They could have notified some Mesa devs a couple weeks ago and handed out a couple free copies of the game under NDA to get it fixed, but they instead seem perfectly content just letting their game ship completely broken on Mesa.

                However, after some thought, I think maybe it's not quite as bad as i was assuming. It sounds like they simply saw that GL4.3 wasn't enabled and assumed it was a ways off and there wasn't really any point to trying to debug stuff yet. A month ago that probably would have made sense, because all the GL enablement work that's gone into this round of Mesa has happened quite rapidly and it's all just fallen into place now.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                  However, after some thought, I think maybe it's not quite as bad as i was assuming. It sounds like they simply saw that GL4.3 wasn't enabled and assumed it was a ways off and there wasn't really any point to trying to debug stuff yet. A month ago that probably would have made sense, because all the GL enablement work that's gone into this round of Mesa has happened quite rapidly and it's all just fallen into place now.
                  Yeah, can't blame Ferral for missing GL4.3 support in Mesa. Then there is also catalyst, but they probably don't care too much about it.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    @bridgman

                    Do you think that AMD is doing a good job to package AMDGPU-PRO beta drivers only for Ubuntu? Now SteamOS uses this kind of packaging too but I did not find anybody to try that yet with Debian. Basically it is a weird mix from 2 parallel available LibGL implementations this way... If a game is not tested against your highly restricted drivers and mesa has no stable release (together with LLVM for AMD) it is basically logical to use working drivers first and optimize later for the rest. If you keep developing all the time you forget to sell the game.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by M@GOid View Post
                      Remember when Metro LL was ported to Linux with less effects than Windows? That is what you get when you target lower versions of OpenGL;
                      Running with fewer effects is better than not running at all. Feral said in https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93144#c31 that they don't develop fallbacks and instead prefer to let everything fail.

                      Originally posted by M@GOid View Post
                      So they actually test OSS drivers (unlike a lot of other porters), make bug reports when they found ones
                      Stop repeating that BS again after I already proved that throughout their entire lifetime, Feral only filed 9 (NINE!) bug reports.

                      I filed more bug reports and I'm not a well-paid developer but did that in my free time. So STFU about how great Feral supposedly is.
                      Aspyr does better work and that's why Aspyr gets my money and Feral does not.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X