Difference between revisions of "Talk:ATI"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Questionable Statements: strikethrough resolved dialogue for deletion)
 
(90 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Questionable Statements ==
+
== Move ==
<s>"Radeons from HD 2xxx to HD 6xxx ... (for example, '''powersaving is still in a testing phase''')."
+
I do believe this is now functional, from using my HD6770 with power_profile and the featureMatrix represented on X.org.  Any objections to removal?</s> [[User:T1nk3r3r|T1nk3r3r]] ([[User talk:T1nk3r3r|talk]]) 18:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
+
: <s>Is there any offical release note /commit log about powersaving support exit testing phase ?</s> -- [[User:Fengchao|Fengchao]] ([[User talk:Fengchao|talk]]) 09:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
+
:: <s>Excellent point.  I think I can investigate that later today. Although the table on X.org showed most features functional across the board. This may have happened months ago. </s> [[User:T1nk3r3r|T1nk3r3r]] ([[User talk:T1nk3r3r|talk]]) 19:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
+
::: <s>I don't have time to cherry-pick through the [http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-ati/ commit logs].  I skimmed through 2012.  However, this [http://wiki.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature#KMS_Power_Management_Options page] shows the options for powersaving, and the table clearly shows functions are complete for all but the oldest cards.  On the flip side, where is the reference ''proving'' the original statement?</s> [[User:T1nk3r3r|T1nk3r3r]] ([[User talk:T1nk3r3r|talk]]) 20:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
+
::::<s> Then the testing phase statement could be removed. </s> --[[User:Fengchao|Fengchao]] ([[User talk:Fengchao|talk]]) 12:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
+
  
== KMS -- do we have to do anything at all to enable it? ==
+
So this page now covers {{Pkg|xf86-video-ati}} and {{Pkg|xf86-video-amdgpu}}. As I understand they are closely related and share quite some code, so it makes sense to keep them on the same page.
The KMS sections says it's on by default, should we even have to put radeon in MODULES any longer? If not, the intro to that section should probably mention that "you can skip the rest of this section if 'dmesg|grep modesetting' shows 'radeon kernel modesetting enabled'.
+
:: (rc.conf/MODULES are deprecated with systemd)  Thinking about it, I don't explicitly recall having to enable it for the default ARCH kernel.  The ''late start'' section may indeed be rendered redunant.  Can anyone confirm this on a fresh install? [[User:T1nk3r3r|T1nk3r3r]] ([[User talk:T1nk3r3r|talk]]) 18:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
+
:: From [http://wiki.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature#Linux_kernel_parameters this page], it is stated that the current behavior is to autodetect. So as long as the module is available and the hardware is there, it will load without intervention.  It only remains to be stated when this started -- for now we can simply say: currently. Leave a link to xorg? [[User:T1nk3r3r|T1nk3r3r]] ([[User talk:T1nk3r3r|talk]]) 21:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
+
  
=== KMS Early ===
+
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.
I don't know how others feel about this, but my preferred setup is to put <tt>options radeon modeset=1</tt> in <tt>modprobe.conf</tt> and then to include <tt>modprobe.con</tt> along with the <tt>radeon</tt> module in <tt>mkinitcpio.conf</tt>. This way KMS is enabled once for both early and late start. Also, in the event of problems, <tt>radeon.modeset=1</tt> can still be added as a kernel option to the bootloader. --[[User:piezoelectric|piezoelectric]]
+
:: The bigger question here is: How early is Early?  If I'm not mistaken: '''boot options''' come first, then '''initramfs''', then '''modprobe.conf''' once the final root filesystem is mounted.  If it is enabled at boot, any other toggles may be rendered pointless.  This may only be applicable if firmware needs to be compiled into the kernel (newer cards). On the other hand, see parent section here. [[User:T1nk3r3r|T1nk3r3r]] ([[User talk:T1nk3r3r|talk]]) 18:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
+
  
== Enabling video acceleration ==
+
What do other people think? Should we move the page? What should be the new name? Thanks. [[User:Lonaowna|Lonaowna]] ([[User talk:Lonaowna|talk]]) 16:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  
<tt>~/.bashrc</tt> is the wrong place for setting this environment variables. This file is not consulted when starting i.e. firefox from the gnome shell. As it is a hardware dependent setting that is reasonable for every user on this box, i created a file in /etc/profile.d/ to accomplish this.  
+
: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.
 +
:[[User:Beta990|Beta990]] ([[User talk:Beta990|talk]]) 20:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  
Setting this variables makes a difference when using flashplayer for youtube videos. When set, flashplayer reports accelerated rendering enabled at home with my ati hd3200 onboard graphics and rendering is faster in full screen mode.
+
::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 [https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=search&q=AMDGPU 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.
 +
::[[User:Lonaowna|Lonaowna]] ([[User talk:Lonaowna|talk]]) 21:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  
It works now no more worse than under windows.
+
:::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?
 +
:::[[User:Beta990|Beta990]] ([[User talk:Beta990|talk]]) 21:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  
== Radeon vs. Catalyst ==
+
There now is a [[AMDGPU]] page. All info related to the amdgpu driver with GNC 1.2 cards should be moved there. [[User:Lonaowna|Lonaowna]] ([[User talk:Lonaowna|talk]]) 13:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  
;Catalyst
+
== Adding xf86-video-amdgpu ==
The ATI and Catalyst pages state that Catalyst performs better for 3D. As most of you may have experienced, the Catalyst driver is clunky and very badly optimized for Linux. Gaming performance is usually worse than on Windows. Catalyst and Nvidia drivers do not uses Unix interfaces properly (Linux kernel and Xorg), a big part of it is just a bunch of hacks. See what [http://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/FAQ#So_go_to_a_country_where_it.2BIBk-s_not_illegal_and_produce_specs.21 the nouveau folks think]. It's probably a matter of syncing development between different platforms, so adapting the driver as less as possible from Windows is probably more profitable. The lack of respect for interfaces has one major issue: the compatibility with Xorg and Kernels is extremely fragile. Besides, a lot of features or simply not reliable (or at least a real pain to setup) with these drivers, such as dual head / external output, custom kernels, hibernation...
+
  
It would be a great relief for the Unix communities to finally have a free, full-featured and top class 3D graphic driver.  
+
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.)?
  
;Radeon
+
Thanks!
AMD did a very good thing when they decided to release the specs of their cards. FOSS radeon driver is now lightyears beyond nouveau in term of OpenGL implementation. The FOSS radeon driver seems like the ideal future of Unix graphics to me.
+
  
Since version 9.0.* from late 2012 and January 2013, OpenGL implementation has moved several steps forward as you can see on the [http://www.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature feature matrix]. In fact, I've tested several games (native or Wine) and radeon performs much better than catalyst most of the times.
+
[[User:Beta990|Beta990]] ([[User talk:Beta990|talk]]) 20:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  
For performance and Unix-frendliness, I suggest we should encourage Unix users to choose radeon over catalyst. Too many people are held up in their switching-to-Unix because of the terrible, infamous catalyst, even if all they need is average 3D graphics.
+
:The [http://www.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature/ 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. [[User:Lonaowna|Lonaowna]] ([[User talk:Lonaowna|talk]]) 21:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  
Since this revolution is brand new, it requires support from the community. We also need concrete data that states the progress, the support and the performance of radeon compared to catalyst.
+
::Thanks for the reply. :)
 +
::I've read a few reports of users that the driver works on older GCN's, but this should need more testing.
 +
::How much stable and complete is the new driver? I think we need more info before adding a new wiki page.
 +
::[[User:Beta990|Beta990]] ([[User talk:Beta990|talk]]) 22:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  
I suggest we create a benchmark page for that. Should we create a new page? I'll begin it below for now, but we shall move it in the future.
+
:::Looks like the gentoo wiki pages for the [https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Radeon#Feature_support Radeon] and [https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Amdgpu#Feature_support 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)? [[User:ShadowElemental|ShadowElemental]] ([[User talk:ShadowElemental|talk]]) 04:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 
+
--[[User:Ambrevar|Ambrevar]] ([[User talk:Ambrevar|talk]]) 12:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
+
 
+
:: A benchmark page could be informative, especially for newcomers that are having a difficult time making up their minds.  AMD is actually shifting support from Catalyst to radeon drivers.  They had hired two bodies to work on the radeon driver.  But then I came across this: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/AMD-dismisses-numerous-open-source-developers-1745131.html
+
:: I just found this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/05/amd_open_source_hd_8000_drivers/print.html
+
:: Regardless, there has been a lot of headway in the last four years.  I recently tested some games on vanilla Wine and performance was considerable.
+
:: When I came to Arch, I was using Catalyst.  I was a pain to setup and maintain.  I was since persuaded by a Wine developer to switch to the radeon driver, as it is much easier to debug and submit patches upstream for either Wine or Radeon.  Not to mention Catalyst only ever "officially" supported Ubuntu, SUSE, and RedHat.
+
:: Drop a line to the Catalyst talk page?  [[User:T1nk3r3r|T1nk3r3r]] ([[User talk:T1nk3r3r|talk]]) 17:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
+
::: I think the message in the introduction is clear: '''If unsure, try the open source driver first, it will suit most needs and is generally less problematic'''. -- 09:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
+
::::Sure, but the previous paragraph clearly tells 'if you want 3D performance, go for Catalyst', which is not very true anymore. --[[User:Ambrevar|Ambrevar]] ([[User talk:Ambrevar|talk]]) 09:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
+
:::::I agree.  So we just need a clear statement from a benchmarking website that supports that.  Preferably something recent.
+
:::::I will not question the removal of dubious statements, so long as that point is made clear in the edit summary. [[User:T1nk3r3r|T1nk3r3r]] ([[User talk:T1nk3r3r|talk]]) 19:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
+
=== Benchmark ===
+
 
+
To be continued.
+

Latest revision as of 13:22, 16 February 2016

Move

So this page now covers xf86-video-ati and xf86-video-amdgpu. 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.

What do other people think? Should we move the page? What should be the new name? Thanks. Lonaowna (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

There now is a AMDGPU page. All info related to the amdgpu driver with GNC 1.2 cards should be moved there. Lonaowna (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding xf86-video-amdgpu

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.)?

Thanks!

Beta990 (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

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)
Thanks for the reply. :)
I've read a few reports of users that the driver works on older GCN's, but this should need more testing.
How much stable and complete is the new driver? I think we need more info before adding a new wiki page.
Beta990 (talk) 22:00, 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)