Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 6th May 2006 17:01 UTC, submitted by Phoronix
3D News, GL, DirectX "We have been overwhelmed with requests to take a serious look at the frame-rate performance differences between the various open-source and proprietary contenders. Our first article on this topic, which will likely be the first of a series of examinations, is looking at the differences between the X.Org open-source ATI Radeon driver and that of ATI's official but proprietary fglrx display driver."
Thread beginning with comment 121943
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: 2d?
by Wrawrat on Sun 7th May 2006 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE: 2d?"
Member since:

I sometimes wonder whether this whole 'we can't opensource our specifications' ATI and Nvidia uses is just a pathetic rouse to hide from the public the fact that they couldn't cobble together a decent driver if their lives depended on it.

So their engineers could develop top-of-the-line hardware with millions of transistors... but couldn't develop a driver for it? And people outside their project would know better? Right...

It's probably a question of IP and control rather than competence.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: 2d?
by leech on Sun 7th May 2006 22:53 in reply to "RE[2]: 2d?"
leech Member since:

I don't know how long you've been in the computer industry, but have you ever noticed that most people either know hardware or software, but rarely know a lot about both?

Probably the same thing with the hardware companies, I bet that the chip designers and the driver writers are not the same department. If they are, then perhaps some of their designs are inherintly flawed, because ATI's drivers do suck. I've basically seen on lists of worse drivers ATI or Creative always taking the number 1 position, though since the catalyst drivers have been coming out, there has been an improvement.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: 2d?
by Wrawrat on Wed 10th May 2006 13:09 in reply to "RE[2]: 2d?"
Wrawrat Member since:

You're right. Yet, do you believe these companies are engaging ignorants? Some could be, but not every one of them.

As for your second point, it's the way drivers were developed when I did a training at Matrox. Still, the driver team had a good communication with the hardware team. This experience doesn't say a word on the quality of the drivers provided by ATI, but it made me familiar with the development process. Proprietary code and copy protection schemes are involved.

It's true that open-source software leads to better software, but I am not sure the companies in the highly-competitive graphics market are ready to forfeit the control of their project and their advantages over their opponents, especially when the opposition doesn't have to do OSS.

Reply Parent Score: 1