AMD GPU-PRO Hybrid Linux OpenGL Performance vs. RadeonSI Gallium3D

[tomtomme]

I don't think we call it Pro Hybrid - officially it's the Pro driver, technically it's the hybrid driver.

*bridgman has a moment of doubt, checks release notes, confirms that the word hybrid does not appear... whew...

It doesn't have Digital Rights Management but it does have KMS

does it have freesync? I want to buy a new monitor with freesync in september...

[duby229]

LOL obviously, why did you think about Direct Rendering Manager?

Just clarifying. The context could have been interpreted as either/or.

[darkbasic]

Because that's a pun that bridgman made which apparently caused some confusion in this thread.

Anyway don't get me wrong: I'm really HAPPY that AMD chosed the hybrid path and even happier that they already released a first preview, but I always thought that they had to have a proprietary driver because of DRM. Since apparently they don't care for DRM I really strive to see why not simply dropping the closed driver. Am I the only one who thinks the closed driver is going to die sooner or later?

[darkbasic]

does it have freesync? I want to buy a new monitor with freesync in september...

If it doesn't it will for sure.

[bridgman]

DRM are the only reason why AMD still needs a proprietary driver, otherwise they could simply use the FOSS driver alone. I don't care for DRM but I really don't understand why don't they simply drop the closed driver if not for supporting DRM.

The issue is not DRM in the Linux driver it's DRM in other OSes. As long as we are sharing code between DRM-supporting OSes and Linux it's going to be tougher to open up the source, although there are more issues than just DRM involved.

BTW my impression was that rabcor was asking about Direct Rendering Manager (although I think he was actually looking for KMS) rather than Digital Rights Management but that was just my guess.

Anyway don't get me wrong: I'm really HAPPY that AMD chosed the hybrid path and even happier that they already released a first preview, but I always thought that they had to have a proprietary driver because of DRM. Since apparently they don't care for DRM I really strive to see why not simply dropping the closed driver. Am I the only one who thinks the closed driver is going to die sooner or later?

One of the main reasons for keeping a proprietary OpenGL driver is that workstation apps are still relying on compatibility profiles, which are supported in AMD/NVidia proprietary GL drivers but not in Mesa. There are no plans to support compatibility profiles in Mesa because behavior is not covered by OpenGL standards and so ends up being inherently vendor-specific.

does it have freesync? I want to buy a new monitor with freesync in september...

No freesync yet and not sure about plans, but AFAIK it includes DAL by default which is a pre-requisite for freesync.

[darkbasic]

Huh ? The issue is not DRM in the Linux driver it's DRM in other OSes. As long as we are sharing code between DRM-supporting OSes and Linux it's going to be tougher to open up the source

Isn't the most problematic part to deal with in the kernel space, which isn't shared anyway? Which kind of userspace support does DRM need for OpenGL?

although there are more issues than just DRM involved.

Which kind of issues? Just curious.

[leonmaxx]

Ok, but what about the horrible desktop tearing, and video tearing and 3d tearing? What about the horrible 2d performance? What about the laughing stock XvBM? I don't see how you could have standed using it for long enough to determine regressions?

With Catalyst 15.12 I don't have problems that You listed.

[tomtomme]

No freesync yet and not sure about plans, but AFAIK it includes DAL by default which is a pre-requisite for freesync.

More like 1 year or more like 2 years would be enough info for me. could you get that info from someone? If there is no one (because there is no plan yet) I would guess its 2 years...

[bridgman]

I'm a bit confused with the new AMD's naming convention... r600, radeonsi, amdgpu, gpu-pro, gpu-pro hybrid, catalyst, gpuopen, crimson, ...
To me, it's too much changes in a too short amount of time. They should simplify instead of complexify.

In the end, I can't even remember what is OSS and what isn't.

It gets confusing if you mix up component names and stack names:

Components:
- r600, radeonsi (gallium3D pipe drivers in Mesa),
- amdgpu kernel driver,
- amdgpu X driver

Stacks:
- radeon all-open,
- amdgpu all-open,
- amdgpu hybrid (which marketing calls Pro),
- Catalyst->Crimson

Other - gpuopen (open source tools for game & compute app developers)

Typos & oddities:
- gpu-pro (Legal asked us to put a space in amdgpu for now, should go back to amdgpu),
- gpu-pro Hybrid (only appears in this article title AFAIK, believe Michael was just trying to make sure people recognized what article was about whether they thought of the new driver as "pro" or as "hybrid")

[bridgman]

Isn't the most problematic part to deal with in the kernel space, which isn't shared anyway? Which kind of userspace support does DRM need for OpenGL?

Actually no - on other OSes video playback paths for protected video involve OpenGL and/or OpenCL, so DRM is pretty pervasive.