Superposition Shows How Far RadeonSI Gallium3D Has Evolved vs. AMDGPU-PRO

[smitty3268]

Then where's the open source code? I'll tell you, it's in radv right now, and no thanks to AMD at all. That's a waste. A horrible unfortunate waste. And it's plainly obvious.

Ok, so you *are* saying they should just drop that effort. I don't necessarily disagree with you there.

That still doesn't really affect having a -pro GL driver, it's kind of a separate topic.

[bridgman]

I want to know how well the vendors are supporting linux with drivers. I can never expect open source driver to preform as well as ones provided by the manufactures. And in the case they out preform the OEM drivers, it shows the lack of effort on their part to provide good drivers.

Huh ? What if the manufacturer does a lot of the development work on the open source drivers, which is the case for AMD ?

[duby229]

That sounds like scarcity (not enough resources) not waste. Unless you're saying they should just drop those open sourcing efforts.

Then where's the open source code? I'll tell you, it's in radv right now, and no thanks to AMD at all. That's a waste. A horrible unfortunate waste. And it's plainly obvious.

[duby229]

It is not wrong thing to do at all, that is all in OpenGL specs so it is an Standard... but implementation is optional not requirement. Basically it is not at all wrong thing to do, not sure who said you that?

Just because some implementation decided to not do it and not to have something optional... does not mean that it is wrong per se

It was specified in the 3.x specs, and as such the mesa does in fact implement it correctly. But it is -NOT- part of the 4.x spec and anyone that implements compatibility profiles while using 4.x specifications is breaking the standard. That's a fact. It is in fact wrong. Absolutely yes.

EDIT: I am actually wrong, see here. https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...655#post945655

[smitty3268]

Waste is obvious. Where is the open source OpenCL, Vulkan, etc? Still not open source. Still developed behind closed doors. Still no communication. And by every account there at least dozens of developers working on it internally at AMD. That's plainly obvious massive waste.

That sounds like scarcity (not enough resources) not waste. Unless you're saying they should just drop those open sourcing efforts.

[dungeon]

Which is what you said in the last post. But if the fundamental problem is that those apps are using compatibility profiles, and that compatibility profiles are the wrong thing to do, then doesn't it make more sense for AMD, Linux and, AMD's customers, to eliminate the compatibiliy profile requirements from those broken apps?

I mean after all they -are- your customers. Don't you think it makes better sense to ensure your customers use correct code so that their app and your drivers can function on linux according to standards?

It is not wrong thing to do at all, that is all in OpenGL specs so it is an Standard... but implementation is optional not requirement. Basically it is not at all wrong thing to do, not sure who said you that?

Just because some implementation decided to not do it and not to have something optional... does not mean that it is wrong per se

[tomtomme]

Really the only linux benches that catch my eye are linux vs windows on the same systems. I want to know how well the vendors are supporting linux with drivers.
I can never expect open source driver to preform as well as ones provided by the manufactures. And in the case they out preform the OEM drivers, it shows the lack of effort on their part to provide good drivers.

.... the biggest part of AMDs opensource driver is by paid AMD developers...

[duby229]

I'm not sure I follow. Windows is still a large percentage of the PC market. We still need to support that market. The OGL driver used for windows supports compatibility profiles and has a lot of optimizations for workstation apps. With relatively little effort, we can leverage that driver on Linux as well to support those markets.



What waste are you talking about? There aren't huge separate closed source Linux teams. There is a closed source OGL driver supported by a single team that supports multiple OSes. The thing is, there are a lot of workstation customers that want to use our GPUs to run workstation apps on Linux today.

Which is what you said in the last post. But if the fundamental problem is that those apps are using compatibility profiles, and that compatibility profiles are the wrong thing to do, then doesn't it make more sense for AMD, Linux and, AMD's customers, to eliminate the compatibiliy profile requirements from those broken apps?

I mean after all they -are- your customers. Don't you think it makes better sense to ensure your customers use correct code so that their app and your drivers can function on linux according to standards?

Waste is obvious. Where is the open source OpenCL, Vulkan, etc? Still not open source. Still developed behind closed doors. Still no communication. And by every account there at least dozens of developers working on it internally at AMD. That's plainly obvious massive waste.

[agd5f]

So in other words, Use amdgpu-pro for OpenGL support only when the app you use requires compatibility profiles. And also because of that AMD is forced to spend huge amounts of resources pooling developers from other OS drivers in order to support that, which as you say doesn't benefit Linux at all, not even a tiny little bit.

I'm not sure I follow. Windows is still a large percentage of the PC market. We still need to support that market. The OGL driver used for windows supports compatibility profiles and has a lot of optimizations for workstation apps. With relatively little effort, we can leverage that driver on Linux as well to support those markets.

Why doesn't AMD instead decide to take the financial and human resources it wastes on proprietary drivers and use them to assist it's customers in modernizing their codebases to actually work with correct modern drivers? It seems like that -would- actually benefit linux and AMD and foremost their customers.

What waste are you talking about? There aren't huge separate closed source Linux teams. There is a closed source OGL driver supported by a single team that supports multiple OSes. The thing is, there are a lot of workstation customers that want to use our GPUs to run workstation apps on Linux today.

[dungeon]

Well, Vulkan is also for workstations Just to aware people of that... it is not gaming-only API could be used for computations only. Vulkan is both graphic and compute API, just one part of potentional usage are games So making one VK game run, does not mean you are on par with blob implementation... it is the same as with GL...

We are all app driven, if Mesa can't do what blob can... basically use blob or the opposite if Mesa do all you need then you don't need blob It is up to user and per usage scenario to decide.