Blender 3.3 Released With Intel oneAPI Backend, Improved AMD HIP Support

[Quackdoc]

POLARIS is from 2016. And it is hard to support features in hardware if the hardware is not capable to support those features.

It doesnt matter how old the architecture is, if they didnt want people complaining about it, they shouldnt have done it. this isnt some foss project we get for free, this is something people spend their money on, and on some cases, not a small sum of it either. it doesnt matter what reasons they have, the rx 590 is simply not old enough that I can consider this justifiable behaviour.

thankfully with an Igpu my wayland issues can be mostly solved, and aside from a few apps, if I didn't absolutely need wayland, I wouldn't use it anyways.

[oleid]

thankfully with an Igpu my wayland issues can be mostly solved, and aside from a few apps, if I didn't absolutely need wayland, I wouldn't use it anyways.

If you don't care about Wayland and wouldn't use it anyways, why are you complaining that AMD doesn't support some things on Polaris?

[Quackdoc]

If you don't care about Wayland and wouldn't use it anyways, why are you complaining that AMD doesn't support some things on Polaris?

I don't know if you have reading comprehension issues or not considering you even quoted me, but lets assume you do and didnt read that I NEED wayland and of course the fact that I need it, and I cant use features which have the potential to make it better will annoy me. even if that wasn't the case why would it matter? AMD is not supporting polaris in a manner that I think they should be. they don't support wayland wlroots because of features that the GPU lacks, features that can be useful in other applications like MPV. (it would be EVEN more asinine if it was some arbitrary block) features that both intel and nvidia gpus of the same generation support. and as far as I can tell, features that polaris should be capable of using.

but let's for the sake of furthering the conversation assume it doesn't matter (which it does), you still have things like the lack of HEVC in AMF. features that windows equivilent gpus have, that we don't unless you stick with the newer generations.

it doesnt matter if I have a use for these features or not (I do.) even if I didnt have a need for it for say, HEVC AMF, which I don't need, its still annoying that these features aren't supported on a gpu I purchased, despite the fact that it should be possible to do so. like I said this isnt some open source free project that I get to use because some folk were willing to put it out there. These are features that are supposed to make their product more worthwhile to convince people to buy it, no AMD doesn't have an obligation to implement these features.

but I also don't have an obligation to buy or reccomend their products, and after the recent events at AMD, who lets be clear, is no longer 5 foot deep in the hole with a shovel in their hand, (at least the the recent success in the past few years, they shouldn't be). I see no reason to support them anymore. their feature set isn't anywhere near comparable to Nvidia, and as I have been saying they support they have been giving to a card that came it in 2018 is a shame.

[qarium]

it's because Polaris is effectively deprecated in the eyes of AMD. The RX 590 came out in 2018. not a great length of period for support. AMD has been nothing but a shit show lately.
and considering how popular Polaris still is. The fact that blenders not getting support for is quite honestly a damn shame. AMD has had a lot of issues. but this for me is the nail in the coffin, polaris doesn't support wlroots vulkan, doesn't support Vulkan zerocopy in libplacebo. no AMF hevc support etc.
im done wasting money supporting AMD, their linux support isn't even that great anymore. Ive bought AMD constantly, and was my go-to for putting into customer computers. not anymore.

stop fool yourself. in the amd driver Polaris is no longer supported for these compute parts
but the joke is amd is no longer the relevant driver vendor anymore...

if you see the ROCm/HIP driver packages from debian and fedora and Arch linux you discover that the Polaris patches to make blender 3.3+ run are in the Debian/Fedora/Arch files...

so your complete point of polaris not supported is a complete joke because no one use these amd drivers anymore.

[Quackdoc]

stop fool yourself. in the amd driver Polaris is no longer supported for these compute parts
but the joke is amd is no longer the relevant driver vendor anymore...

if you see the ROCm/HIP driver packages from debian and fedora and Arch linux you discover that the Polaris patches to make blender 3.3+ run are in the Debian/Fedora/Arch files...

so your complete point of polaris not supported is a complete joke because no one use these amd drivers anymore.

if I were to tell my boss, or my customers to use unofficial patches to get compute working, my ass would be fired faster then a corner hooker gets the clap. unofficial patches are NOT a good solution, and the fact that they are reccomended here is a joke and a half and only serves to further my point, and makes AMD look even worse.

so thanks, now I know that it's not even worth giving AMD a shot in the future.

[qarium]

It doesnt matter how old the architecture is, if they didnt want people complaining about it, they shouldnt have done it. this isnt some foss project we get for free, this is something people spend their money on, and on some cases, not a small sum of it either. it doesnt matter what reasons they have, the rx 590 is simply not old enough that I can consider this justifiable behaviour.
thankfully with an Igpu my wayland issues can be mostly solved, and aside from a few apps, if I didn't absolutely need wayland, I wouldn't use it anyways.

you have a deep misunterstanding about the driver market for amd hardware.
the market for the FGLRX/PRO driver is very small and based on outdated LTS distros ...

but the much bigger market did go from closed source amd driver to opensource distro packets of the ROCm/HIP driver.

as soon as you install the debian/Fedora/Arch distro packets of ROCm/HIP they do in fact include the Polaris paches.

do you really need the closed source pro driver ? i don't think so. just use the distro ROCm/HIP files.

[qarium]

if I were to tell my boss, or my customers to use unofficial patches to get compute working, my ass would be fired faster then a corner hooker gets the clap. unofficial patches are NOT a good solution, and the fact that they are reccomended here is a joke and a half and only serves to further my point, and makes AMD look even worse.
so thanks, now I know that it's not even worth giving AMD a shot in the future.

thats not unofficial patches... its the official patches inside the distro files of ROCm/HIP...

Arch linux does it Debian does it and also Fedora does it to.

i am on Fedora and the so called unofficial ROCm driver files works well.

[Quackdoc]

thats not unofficial patches... its the official patches inside the distro files of ROCm/HIP...

Arch linux does it Debian does it and also Fedora does it to.

i am on Fedora and the so called unofficial ROCm driver files works well.

wait wait, you are saying that ROCm works fine on polaris, and it's just some kind of flag barring it from working? you realize this just makes it even worse right? there isn't even any extra work they need to do to make it work, aside from validation, and they can't be bothered to do that for cards they were selling 4-5 years ago? I realize that 4-5 years, isn't a short amount of time, but it's not that long either... I really hope this is a joke. cause if not that's just sad...

[qarium]

wait wait, you are saying that ROCm works fine on polaris, and it's just some kind of flag barring it from working? you realize this just makes it even worse right? there isn't even any extra work they need to do to make it work, aside from validation, and they can't be bothered to do that for cards they were selling 4-5 years ago? I realize that 4-5 years, isn't a short amount of time, but it's not that long either... I really hope this is a joke. cause if not that's just sad...

right other people tried it already and you can google it...

"and it's just some kind of flag barring it from working"

it is more than a flag ... its the open-source version of ROCm/HIP it include patches for Polaris.
and the distro files from debian/Arch/fedora use this opensource version of ROCm/HIp..

"you realize this just makes it even worse right?"

no you have a deep misunterstanding what open-source drivers mean in reality it means that the official driver is no longer the only option and it gets competition from the opensource people...
its not a flag like you think it is it is the extra patches in the opensource version of ROCm...

"there isn't even any extra work they need to do to make it work"

of course there is extra work they would have to include the opensource-version patches of ROCm in their closed source version.

"aside from validation,"

AMD do not want to invest money to include these open-source-rocm version patches and they also do not want to spend money on validation,

"and they can't be bothered to do that for cards they were selling 4-5 years ago?"

AMD did release the full spec and opensource development guide for this gpu architecture Polaris
everybody can write a ROCm/HIP driver for this ...

amd plain and simple don't need to do this for themself the opensource linux community already did it.

"I really hope this is a joke. cause if not that's just sad..."

no its not a joke today the relevant drivers come from distro packets and the relevant driver development comes from red-hat and valve and so one... no one cares anymore if amd does it or not.

[Quackdoc]

right other people tried it already and you can google it...

"and it's just some kind of flag barring it from working"

it is more than a flag ... its the open-source version of ROCm/HIP it include patches for Polaris.
and the distro files from debian/Arch/fedora use this opensource version of ROCm/HIp..

"you realize this just makes it even worse right?"

no you have a deep misunterstanding what open-source drivers mean in reality it means that the official driver is no longer the only option and it gets competition from the opensource people...
its not a flag like you think it is it is the extra patches in the opensource version of ROCm...

"there isn't even any extra work they need to do to make it work"

of course there is extra work they would have to include the opensource-version patches of ROCm in their closed source version.

"aside from validation,"

AMD do not want to invest money to include these open-source-rocm version patches and they also do not want to spend money on validation,

"and they can't be bothered to do that for cards they were selling 4-5 years ago?"

AMD did release the full spec and opensource development guide for this gpu architecture Polaris
everybody can write a ROCm/HIP driver for this ...

amd plain and simple don't need to do this for themself the opensource linux community already did it.

"I really hope this is a joke. cause if not that's just sad..."

no its not a joke today the relevant drivers come from distro packets and the relevant driver development comes from red-hat and valve and so one... no one cares anymore if amd does it or not.

do you have a link to said patches? and I dont have a misunderstanding, if its not something thats supported in the end it doesn't matter.