From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The generic modesetting driver

We should also mention the generic modesetting driver. For my card (HD6570), this driver outperforms the ATI driver (I have tested it with glxgears, gtkperf and Unigene Valley) and some benchmarks available on the web seems to go in the same direction. The generic driver gives 2D acceleration via glamor and the 3D mesa libraries; 3D acceleration is given by the Mesa libraries. It is not clear that the modesetting driver is better under all circumstances but it is a "real" driver that is worth considering.

—This unsigned comment is by Olive (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2016‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Turn vsync off

driver="dri2" works both with DRI2 and DRI3. Also I would suggest changing vblank_mode to 1, because 0 is "force disable" and 1 is "disable by default", which seems more correct to me.

—This unsigned comment is by Equeim (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2016‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

You are completely right, this section should be edited, there's no need for "Reason: Is this still valid with DRI3? (which is default)", I will be free to remove it since it works on all drivers with DRI3 (nouveau, radeon etc.). You are also right about vblank_mode, but I've tested it just now, and it should stay 0 because some applications may refuse to disable it when it's "by default" (such as Chromium/Chrome).
However, there is something with mutter/clutter on Gnome-Shell/Cinnamon/Budgie etc. that makes browsers behave weird if it's set to 0, with 1, behaviour is as expected, so maybe we should add that as an note or added section? Here is bug explained:
I would add notice for Gnome-Shell (mutter/clutter based WM), but I need second opinion. Lpr (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


This is still called "ATI", after the company that has been acquired by AMD eleven years ago. I think this is rather confusing because the article is covering the radeon DRM driver, Mesa stuff etc. and nothing really carries the name ATI still inside it, besides the old ddx driver.

Also, the old stuff about catalyst and fglrx could get into a separate, legacy article as imho most Arch users should not be concerned about that stuff.

The "quick start guide" that comes after the installation guide ( also only refers to ATI, Intel and NVIDIA.

I would like to restructure this whole stuff and add some more knowledge about the actual graphics stacks.

In a separate, e.g. "graphics drivers" article we could

  • note that there are free and proprietary stacks
  • explain that there isn't an actual "graphics driver" but a graphics stack that consists of DRM/kernel drivers, the libdrm and userspace drivers for 3D, Video, GPGPU and X
  • present the different stacks in a table, say which stack supports which hardware and link to separate articles for each: Intel, free AMD stack, AMDGPU-PRO, nouveau, Nvidia, and maybe one legacy ATI/AMD stacks.
  • recommend to use free stacks in general. Also recommend generic modesetting w/ glamor instead of old ddx drivers

Then, in each article with the more meaningful titles keep the same info for each of the stacks (tips, troubleshooting, ...).

How do you guys think about that proposal?

Iuno (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  • What are the "more meaningful titles" that you propose?
  • There is no catalyst/fglrx info on this page.
  • The "quick start guide" should point to Xorg#Driver_installation, where most of your proposal is already covered. If not, feel free to prepare a draft on your userpage so that we can look at it.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. For "more meaningful titles" I'd suggest some consistency. E.g. there is Intel graphics (which seems fine on it's own), NVIDIA (the brand name that should also be fine as they build GPUs and SoCs, the latter might not be significant here), Nouveau (driver stack name). And then there is ATI, as mentioned a brand name that died many years ago and the relevant article covers quite recent hardware. And of course AMDGPU, the name of the driver stack that newbies might not now. Radeon also redirects to ATI, as does Amd. If a user searches one term for AMD graphics, they land in ATI 99% and that's confusing imho. Sure, there is the introduction mentioning amdgpu and catalyst but should this not be on a short and clear overview page and then link to relevant article?
I like the table at Xorg#Driver_installation very much. But here you can also see there is catalyst mentioned instead of amdgpu-pro. Also it covers OpenGL but not VA-API, VDPAU, Vulkan or OpenCL. Also, it lists ddx drivers and make them look like a requirement but they don't really offer advantages over the generic modesetting driver at all anymore. The opposite is true for some users.
I also dont' get what the GCN table is doing there: Xorg#AMD. I added the info about amdgpu compatibility a while ago on ATI or AMDGPU and it got removed. Also, this section is not tied to X, as it applies to Wayland too.
-- Iuno (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Since you don't have anything better straight away, I think that "ATI" is a good enough title as it is sufficiently different from both AMDGPU and AMD Catalyst. There is already different driver for newer hardware, so we might as well just let the page perish following the lead of the brand. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)