Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AMD Graphics Software Open Source

Open Source AMD Driver Now Supports OpenGL 3.3 — and It's Getting Faster 100

Posted by timothy
from the is-it-good-enough-for-you dept.
An anonymous reader writes "With the latest open source Linux code published today the AMD RadeonSI Gallium3D driver supports OpenGL 3.3 and GLSL 1.50; this is the open source Linux graphics driver used for Radeon HD 7000 series and newer, including the new Hawaii GPUs. The OpenGL 3.3 support appeared in patches spread across Mesa and LLVM that should appear in their next releases. It was also found that the RadeonSI driver is becoming a lot faster and starting to compete with Catalyst, AMD's notorious Linux binary driver."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Open Source AMD Driver Now Supports OpenGL 3.3 — and It's Getting Faster

Comments Filter:
  • Why not start working on 4.0 instead of older versions?
    • Re: 4.0? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Therad (2493316)
      Because 3.3 is a subset of 4?
    • by r1348 (2567295)

      Why not trying having the tiniest clue on what the hell you're talking about?

    • by wertigon (1204486)

      Because the open source implementations are tied to the MESA project - whatever MESA supports is possible to support, although not required to support.

      Anything MESA doesn't support, well, is impossible at the moment.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Fuck a duck they are setting the bar pretty low if their goal is to compete with AMDs Catalyst Drivers, the official AMD Drivers on both Windows & Linux are junk.

    AMD should be ashamed of their official drivers, you would think after all these years they would have got a grip of their developers & started to produce some decent reliable drivers but alas this is not the case you have to manually delete files when removing the drivers as the drivers are too fucking dumb to remember where they installed

    • by aliquis (678370)

      That's what I was going to say.

      "It's easy when you aim low. How are your drivers doing against Nvidias Linux drivers AMD?", though my impression is that they have improved (also relative.)

      I have no experience actually using them so I don't know how much suffering it is (even with a good distribution with a drivers package?) and I don't know how much blame should be put on Linux & others (You're of course free to argue that it wouldn't be a problem if the drivers was open-source.)

    • by guacamole (24270)

      AMD Catalyst drivers are garbage. The other day I installed the latest version (13.something?) on my Samsung notebook and then decided to uninstal them and go back to the old factory video driver version. What happened? Firefox stopped working with some strange errors, IE, and a lot of other applications. It's unbelievable that nearly two decades after Windows 95, there still exist device drivers that can destroy your OS install and force you to install everything. You hear me AMD developers? Your drivers a

    • Buck a Fuck if you think the AMD driver is shit on Windows - it's all the Ducky Poo Catalyst Control Center that quacks like a moose. I never install anything more then the Radeon Driver from Windows update as it doesn't add the moosely Catalyst Control Center to the system and the latest version depends on dotnet 4 just to work on a windows box.

      From a user standpoint, I've found that the Open Driver works well enough for me to get shit done and even game a bit under Wine - framerates can and do drop below

  • by complete loony (663508) <Jeremy,Lakeman&gmail,com> on Saturday January 25, 2014 @08:57AM (#46066005)

    Looking at those graphs, for those games, the current open source driver is running above the refresh rate of most monitors.

    So while the catalyst driver may be faster, in some cases doubling the frame rate, I highly doubt you'd actually notice the difference.

    • by Type44Q (1233630)

      Looking at those graphs, for those games, the current open source driver is running above the refresh rate of most monitors.

      So while the catalyst driver may be faster, in some cases doubling the frame rate, I highly doubt you'd actually notice the difference.

      Incorrect; it eliminates the need to run with vsync disabled and the subsequent screen tearing that causes...

      • The only time V-Sync needs to be used is for an SVGA (analog) connection. Otherwise it slows down the redraw of a Digital Connection such as DVI/Display Port/HDMI. So anyone with one of those connections to their display using V-Sync is an idiot/noob that needs to be gutted.

        I've been on a DVI connection for over 3 years and disabled v-sync as soon as I moved. Never seen any tearing even when the game drops below 20FPS (I've seen as bad as 5FPS) but I know my card is obsolete (Radeon 5670 w/512).

        • by tepples (727027)
          HDMI still needs frames to be sent at a constant rate unless the monitor supports G-Sync, which is a very new innovation.
        • by Anonymous Coward

          The only time V-Sync needs to be used is for an SVGA (analog) connection. Otherwise it slows down the redraw of a Digital Connection such as DVI/Display Port/HDMI. So anyone with one of those connections to their display using V-Sync is an idiot/noob that needs to be gutted.

          I've been on a DVI connection for over 3 years and disabled v-sync as soon as I moved. Never seen any tearing even when the game drops below 20FPS (I've seen as bad as 5FPS) but I know my card is obsolete (Radeon 5670 w/512).

          VSync is for when games are rendering faster than the monitor not slower. You will see tearing if you have a game running at 90fps on a 60Hz monitor.

        • by Type44Q (1233630)
          Tearing or no tearing [on a modern flatpanel] , there will be dropped frames - sending the framerate well below the monitor's 60hz refresh rate - unless the vidcard can sustain a high enough framerate with a common denominator of 60hz (say 120, 180 or 240fps)...
    • by waveclaw (43274)

      So while the catalyst driver may be faster, in some cases doubling the frame rate, I highly doubt you'd actually notice the difference.

      Above monitor performance FPS seems useless until you factor in multi-monitor, screen resolution and multi-boxing. Or that games are more than movies (looking at you Japanese RPGs) and have to actually take input and do processing in between frames. Being able to drop a few frames for better input might just mean that click that keeps you alive makes it into the game. A

      • Input events are usually time-stamped by the operating system interrupts that captured them. On network games, these timestamps can be used by the server to work out after the fact who shot first. While pro-gamers like to say that frame rates higher than the monitor refresh rate help them win. I have yet to see a double blind study to confirm that it actually helps.

        Usually network latency is a much bigger and more noticeable problem for this type of after the fact simulation. But the process can be applied

    • by loufoque (1400831)

      Of course, since the only games on the list are Quake 3 and Doom 3, games from 1999 and 2004 respectively.
      A modern graphics card can finally run 15-year old games at max speed! What an impressive feat.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I was surpriced how well radeon driver is working. I'm not even using the newest version, but still the driver works considerably better on opengl use cases than it did just few years ago.

Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds. Biochemistry is the study of carbon compounds that crawl. -- Mike Adams

Working...