Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The State Of Debian's Paid Long Term Support Project

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by dungeon View Post

    There is no link as such, duby229 saw bombastic title once and think that is final .., Really, it is infinite game of catch up to fglrx as far as i remember and i remember a lot sometimes it touched perf in some cases for some asics and sometimes is nowhere near:

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...4gallium&num=1

    But soon after, fglrx boosted it again as there is no definitive peformance for them too so if you have it once in one or couple cases, that is not really final story
    That article is two and a half years old. Look at recent gputest benches on similar hardware and then compare to the gputest results in that article and you can clearly see one example of how much improvement has been made since then.

    But yeah, I agree with Micheal that was roughly about the tipping point timescale.
    Last edited by duby229; 10 July 2016, 08:06 PM.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by duby229 View Post
      That article is two and a half years old.
      Qaridarium asked on moment where r600 surprassed fglrx AFAIU He quoted this, so i think he is interested to see when that happened

      Actually the truth is r600g surpassed Catalyst in performance long before radeonsi surpassed.
      Look at recent gputest benches on similar hardware and then compare to the gputest results in that article and you can clearly see one example of how much improvement has been made since then.
      I am not interesting to prove nothing, and Qaridarium asked about recent game results in comparison to fglrx, not quake3 and particulary not gputest, or so
      Last edited by dungeon; 10 July 2016, 08:15 PM.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by dungeon View Post

        Qaridarium asked on moment where r600 surprassed fglrx AFAIU He quoted this:
        Perhaps. But I didn't look back that far. The last 2 1/2 years in r600g history is a long time. It was damn good then and has gotten better since then.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by duby229 View Post
          Perhaps. But I didn't look back that far. The last 2 1/2 years in r600g history is a long time. It was damn good then and has gotten better since then.
          Yeah r600 can be better now, but there can be some regressions too. And fglrx also moved from that time results
          Last edited by dungeon; 10 July 2016, 08:22 PM.

          Comment


          • #45
            @dungeon

            You can use older GFX chips with Steam and fglrx, but certainly not HD2/3/4 series. For OpenGL 4 you need at least HD 5 series - everything below is useless - then you can keep using mesa.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by Kano View Post
              @dungeon You can use older GFX chips with Steam and fglrx, but certainly not HD2/3/4 series. For OpenGL 4 you need at least HD 5 series - everything below is useless - then you can keep using mesa.
              There is no GL4 hardware requirement for using steam, most and probably more then 99% of games on steam does not use GL4.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by Qaridarium

                I think at this point is us just proven wrong. But i am a FLOSS advocate i would wish we had a opensource driver who really ist just better in everything. But there is a lot of work to do to get to this point. for example FP64 support on HD6870...
                The posts you just wrote in this thread are highly contradictory. They can't both be true at the same time.

                We're just going to have to agree to disagree. While certainly is true that Catalyst supports a higher level of OpenGL, it isn't true that it's a better driver. It's far far more unstable and buggy. If you want a stable platform that you can actually stand to work on, then the OSS drivers are far better. In the loads that it can run, the OSS driver is equal to or faster than Catalyst and the number of loads the oss driver can run is constantly improving. FP64 support for softfloat will come in due time.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by Qaridarium

                  I only use the OSS drivers ... but right now we are at minimum 6 month away from the same feature level than the Catalyst closed source driver.
                  That may be true, but in terms stability, reliability, responsiveness, performance, visual quality the OSS drivers are far better.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    That is OK, you are opensource driver advocators, but i am truth advocator.... Truth, before any of these open or closed sides. And i said several times that i use both drivers and have really nothing against both of these And i know for real who is faster and what is missing in comparison, as...

                    I helped in part of 2014. and whole 2015. to track many issues opensource radeonsi driver had, filled tenth of bugs, bisected any regression in various parts of stack i found and did a lot of various tests in various scenarios.... And i will probably do that again when i had time, during winter maybe

                    But still i know that fglrx is more feature complete and faster for sure (particulary with profiles), i don't claim otherwise

                    edit: yeah, if someone use opensource driver on Kabini hardware in its current shape he can even thank to me No joke, it would be for sure far more borked otherwise And i choosed that one on purpose cos Dänzer was on Kaveri and i saw that Pontostroy do a lot of testing on Bonaire... even if i have both those faster hardware i choose smallest/slowest to use for tests... So that was sort of triangle+plus of testers so that mid-low GCN 1.1 can sort of shine with opensource driver
                    Last edited by dungeon; 11 July 2016, 01:45 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      @duby229

                      I am sure that there are lots of games which do not require OpenGL 4 but the fglrx needed for HD2-4 series is version 8.97.100.7. The last time i updated the fglrx-legacy-driver package was feb 2013. It is definitely obsolete now, fglrx for OpenGL 4 cards is a completely different thing. If you want to patch fgrlx 8.97.100.7 with uptodate kernel support let me know, i won't do that. Somebody should send me a card to try AMDGPU, then i could add support for automatic switching more easyly. fglrx 15.12 is certainly no perfect driver but you can play some OpenGL 4 games - with few exceptions i would expect a very low framerate as soon as tesselation is used.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X