So this page now coversand . As I understand they are closely related and share quite some code, so it makes sense to keep them on the same page.
The name of the page doesn't seem appropriate anymore however. I am thinking something like "AMD graphics", like Intel graphics, although that might not make clear that this is about the open source driver. On the other hand, AMD graphics (open-source) or AMD open-source graphics might be too long.
- How much differences are between kernel/module parameters, etc.?
- Don't forget troubleshooting, debugging, tools, etc. may differ.
- I like the name AMD graphics, and I would prefer this for the ('official') AMD driver.
- A separate page would be something I prefer, but if they are '80/90%' the same, it may be more clear to keep using this page.
- Beta990 (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- I am not really sure about the differences to be honest, it might well be that there is quite a lot of difference. There is a lot of information on Phoronix, but a lot is still unclear to me. It would be nice to get some input from someone who has some more experience with it.
- "AMD graphics" indeed is too ambiguous to use for the open-source driver. If we decide to split off the AMDGPU stuff, we can just keep this at ATI and the new page at AMDGPU, I think.
- Lonaowna (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Although Phoronix daily publish articles about the new driver, it would be better to have a more 'reliable' source.
- Maybe we need to wait for users upgrading their cards and also give (the) AMD (module) a bit more time to develop.
- See my other question about the architect/GPU's that need or could upgrade.
- Is it supposed to replace the xf86-video-ati driver?
- Beta990 (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I would like to know what cards should use xf86-video-amdgpu instead of xf86-video-ati; if I understand correctly it is possible (some) older cards are also compatible with this driver. Is there an official status page (like if DPM works, what is supported, etc.)?
- The feature matrix says only "Volcanic Islands" GPUs are supported, I believe that that is the codename for Graphics Core Next (GCN) 1.2. You can find all cards that are based on GCN 1.2 at Wikipedia:List of AMD graphics processing units. The feature matrix also lists what features are supported.
- I am not sure about older cards, but I think this is as "official" as it's going to get. Lonaowna (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like the gentoo wiki pages for the Radeon and AMDGPU drivers have tables for which graphics cards are supported by which open-source driver. Presumably this information is valid for Radeon and AMDGPU themselves, rather than just for their respective Gentoo packages (and is accurate)? ShadowElemental (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
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.
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.