Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Catalyst Will Not Support Wayland Anytime Soon

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

  • #61
    fortunately, I ONLY use PC of "Intel inside" exclusively,I own a Intel ivb now without any discrete GPU! I'm very satisfied!I'm looking for default Intel driver for Wayland!!!

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
      No, I have "2D acceleration, some OpenGL support (3.0 to be exact) and powersaving" right now, and it works on most cards. This is what you said.

      Actually, it's more likely to work than Nvidia's blob, after the optimus fiasco.
      You don't? Here's a few other things you don't have: http://www.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature/
      Congrats on OpenGL3.0 however, welcome to 2008.
      And I didn't even mention performance yet.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by bug77 View Post
        You don't? Here's a few other things you don't have: http://www.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature/
        Congrats on OpenGL3.0 however, welcome to 2008.
        You need moer than OpenGL 3? Really? What do you use?

        You can't name 3 programs for Linux that require anything more than GL3. So it's a very pointless "feature". OpenCL and dynpm are much more important.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by bug77 View Post
          You don't? Here's a few other things you don't have: http://www.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature/
          Congrats on OpenGL3.0 however, welcome to 2008.
          And I didn't even mention performance yet.
          You realise the majority of things in that link are "done" and it also includes a few things the binary drivers can't do, don't you?

          Sure, the drivers aint finished yet, but you're hardly making a solid case against them.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
            You got that backwards. The blobs are NO REAL ALTERNATIVE to the vastly superior open source drivers.
            You have to be living in a different universe.

            In my universe not even the developers of the OSS drivers would call them "vastly superior to the binary blob". Also, in my universe Phoronix regulary publishes benchmarks where the binary blobs crushes the OSS driver in every aspect.

            Comment


            • #66
              Superior in some ways. Stability, multi-screen support (xrandr), working out-of-the-box, for example.

              Phoronix only publishes Quake3 FPS numbers. There are people out there who use their computers for other things.

              Comment


              • #67
                GL3 is neither important enough to justify the snark, nor so unimportant that we have to resort to the childlike "name 3" argument.

                The OSS drivers are coming along. They work well for a number of configurations and implementations. They fall short in a relevant number of other implementations. They have yet to fully implement a number of features (UVD, Audio, PM, etc) . The current focus (JB correct me if I am wrong) seems to be on OGL/EGL development, stability, OpenCL, and modesetting. If you are interested in contributing, I would recommend that you pick up Audio, UVD (via OpenCL since AMD will not release the documentation), or power-managment/reclocking.

                There's really no reason for the exchange of words that is taking place. We're all happy that FGLRX works for some people. We're all happy that DRI/MESA works for others. The place we want to be is where everyone is happy with DRI/MESA regardless of whatever state FGLRX happens to be in.

                If you are going to run Linux, try the FOSS drivers. If you find that they are not to your liking, for any reason, describe your issue in a bug report and fall back on FGLRX. Retry the FOSS drivers whenever your distro's release cycle ends, or when you receive confirmation that your issue has been resolved.

                And chill.

                F

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by bug77 View Post
                  Really? You have OpenGL 4 support and power management that works for all cards? In this case, I stand corrected.
                  According to your logic Mac OS has not a single proper driver since they only have OpenGL 3.3.

                  Also, please do start on performance. Please do.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                    You need moer than OpenGL 3? Really? What do you use?

                    You can't name 3 programs for Linux that require anything more than GL3. So it's a very pointless "feature". OpenCL and dynpm are much more important.
                    Ah, the sour grapes argument. Now you're making sense.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by ChrisXY View Post
                      According to your logic Mac OS has not a single proper driver since they only have OpenGL 3.3.
                      Mountain Lion features OpenGL 3.2 only.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X