Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RadeonSI Compute Shader Patches Revised

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

  • RadeonSI Compute Shader Patches Revised

    Phoronix: RadeonSI Compute Shader Patches Revised

    For those anxious to see compute shaders for then having OpenGL 4.3 support by the RadeonSI Gallium3D driver for GCN GPUs, the latest patches have been published...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...ute-Shaders-V2

  • #2
    Perhaps some day soon they can completely kill Catalyst on Linux. Seems like RadeonSI is approaching comparable API completeness, comparable performance, and better compatibility.

    Exciting times.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by microcode View Post
      Perhaps some day soon they can completely kill Catalyst on Linux. Seems like RadeonSI is approaching comparable API completeness, comparable performance, and better compatibility.

      Exciting times.
      Unlikely-- As noted in the original AMDGPU docs, Catalyst has some rather nasty performance hacks in it that the mesa guys would never accept, they also get used to validate a specific version against scientific applications that need absolute correctness.
      All opinions are my own not those of my employer if you know who they are.

      Comment


      • #4
        Kinda off-topic; this looks insteresting, to say the least: https://lists.freedesktop.org/archiv...il/112385.html

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Ericg View Post

          Unlikely-- As noted in the original AMDGPU docs, Catalyst has some rather nasty performance hacks in it that the mesa guys would never accept, they also get used to validate a specific version against scientific applications that need absolute correctness.

          I am quite looking forward to the 16.04 upgrade cycle because of AMDGPU finally being "ready" for my Tonga card.

          Comment


          • #6
            The primary reason for keeping the Catalyst GL driver is support for compatibility profiles - there are no plans to ever add that to Mesa.

            That (no compatibility profile support in Mesa) is a good decision IMO, but not all market segments agree with me yet
            Test signature

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ericg View Post
              Unlikely-- As noted in the original AMDGPU docs, Catalyst has some rather nasty performance hacks in it that the mesa guys would never accept
              But that wouldn't stop the Mesa guys from creating things from scratch that fall on their criteria of acceptable, right?

              IMO, Mesa is almost there, we can ALMOST kill Catalyst. There is, however, a very nasty flickering problem that AMD aparently can't/won't fix.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Amarildo View Post
                IMO, Mesa is almost there, we can ALMOST kill Catalyst. There is, however, a very nasty flickering problem that AMD aparently can't/won't fix.
                Amarildo, which flickering problem are you talking about ? Is there a ticket open for it ?

                I found one that was closed as a Steam overlay issue, and another on Pitcairn that seems to be fixed by reverting a specific quirk.

                Thanks !
                bridgman
                AMD Linux
                Last edited by bridgman; 13 April 2016, 11:58 PM.
                Test signature

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by bridgman View Post

                  Amarildo, which flickering problem are you talking about ? Is there a ticket open for it ?

                  I found one that was closed as a Steam overlay issue, and another on Pitcairn that seems to be fixed by reverting a specific quirk.

                  Thanks !
                  Thanks for responding

                  This: https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...-i-report-this

                  I tried using the same modeset as the one used by Catalyst, but it didn't solve the problem.

                  I haven't opened a ticked because I don't know where the problem is located.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                    The primary reason for keeping the Catalyst GL driver is support for compatibility profiles - there are no plans to ever add that to Mesa.

                    That (no compatibility profile support in Mesa) is a good decision IMO, but not all market segments agree with me yet
                    You mean that radeon pro hybrid driver, right? It was already stated (by yourself, if I'm not mistaken) that Catalyst will never get xorg 1.18 support. This means that in a few months no supported linux distribution will exist that can run Catalyst. Eventually even Debian and the likes will upgrade xorg. Basically Catalyst (fglrx) is dead.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X