What You Need To Do To Your Linux System If You Want Open-Source RX 480 Support

[coder]

Sorry for the noob question, but I was never quite clear on exactly what is AMDGPU-PRO? If I go to AMD's website, and download their driver, is that what I'll get?

[bridgman]

Sorry for the noob question, but I was never quite clear on exactly what is AMDGPU-PRO? If I go to AMD's website, and download their driver, is that what I'll get?

Correct. If you install a standard distribution it will include the amdgpu all-open stack for VI and newer parts; if you download from amd.com you get the hybrid/pro driver.

[chithanh]

So what will be the experience if someone

1. replaces his current card with a RX 480 on an up to date Ubuntu 16.04 system running default open source drivers, or
2. replaces his current card with a RX 480 on an up to date Ubuntu 16.04 system running older AMDGPU-PRO, or
3. tries to install Ubuntu 16.04 from release ISOs on a system with RX 480?

Based on how this turned out in the past, it could be any of the following:

1. Everything will just work at acceptable (maybe not optimal) speed
2. The experience will be degraded, but a pop-up will appear that helpfully guides the user to install the driver.
3. The experience will be degraded, but the user has to figure out what's wrong and download the driver manually
4. Things will be broken to the point that no usable graphical environment can start through which the user could launch a browser to download the driver

In case anyone wonders, 4. is what happened with Medion E6424 (article in German) which suffered from the problem that different levels of support for its Iris 550 graphics in the various packages (kernel, libdrm, mesa) caused the Ubuntu installation media to fail.

[bridgman]

Hard to say... we have had support for engineering sample hardware out for a while and 16.04 may have picked up some of it - but it won't have the fixes required by the latest revision of HW. I don't think any driver stacks implement #2 yet and last time I looked the distro install logic did not either, so worst case seems like it would be:

- running stock 16.04 or older PRO driver which does not include Polaris device IDs - #1 - falls back to something like VESA + modesetting driver, runs browser OK

- if stock 16.04 or older PRO driver does include Polaris device IDs then some chance of #4

Not sure about Polaris device IDs in stock 16.04 or recent PRO drivers, will try to find out.

[ElectricPrism]

... Based on how this turned out in the past ... Things will be broken to the point that no usable graphical environment can start ... caused by Ubuntu ...

I reformatted your statement for my own amusement and to describe my past experiences with Ubuntu.

Since I'm really excited about the RX 480 I think I'll lower my expectations to a more modest guestimation,

Here's to hoping RX 480 will be the ticket from Green camp to Red Camp for a lot of us.

If it can do everything my GTX 970 can do I think the open driver will make it reason enough to switch. Also, my Wacom Cintiq on my second PC needs DVI-D so I'll need to wait for a vendor to support that plug if it's not default.

[coder]

Correct. If you install a standard distribution it will include the amdgpu all-open stack for VI and newer parts; if you download from amd.com you get the hybrid/pro driver.

Thanks! Any word on the minimum kernel version I'll need? At work (where I'm most likely to use a RX 480), we use Suse Linux Enterprise, so we run a bit behind on the kernel.

[stompcrash]

I'm confused with AMD's driver strategy. I see in this slide pack http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTgwODA that there are three options, all open, non-pro, and pro. Is there no longer a non-pro version? I thought that the pro version was for FireGL cards. Is there still going to be a Catalyst/Crimson (I don't even know what they're calling it anymore) for Linux, or must we go exclusively with the open source driver?

[M@yeulC]

Also, my Wacom Cintiq on my second PC needs DVI-D so I'll need to wait for a vendor to support that plug if it's not default.

I believe that you can find some active adapters for dead cheap on Amazon. For HDMI or (mini) displayPort.

I'm confused with AMD's driver strategy. I see in this slide pack http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTgwODA that there are three options, all open, non-pro, and pro. Is there no longer a non-pro version? I thought that the pro version was for FireGL cards. Is there still going to be a Catalyst/Crimson (I don't even know what they're calling it anymore) for Linux, or must we go exclusively with the open source driver?

As far as I know, the pro driver is only the equivalent of the old catalyst running on top of an open source kernel module. Thus, no more incompatibility between X/kernel/nonfree driver.

[Tomin]

I believe that you can find some active adapters for dead cheap on Amazon. For HDMI or (mini) displayPort.

Wouldn't HDMI to DVI-D work with a passive adapter as well? After all they are almost the same at least for low resolutions (max. FullHD, I think).

[adler187]

Wouldn't HDMI to DVI-D work with a passive adapter as well? After all they are almost the same at least for low resolutions (max. FullHD, I think).

Yeah, passive should work unless you need a Dual-link DVI, which requires an active adapter. I think some people confuse DVI-D with Dual-link DVI. DVI-D just means the interface only supports digital output, while DVI-I supports analog as well as digital (and can be adapted to VGA).