Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th Jun 2007 20:02 UTC, submitted by Michael
AMD "Last week we had published The Truth About ATI/AMD & Linux, and to no real surprise, the feedback ranged from beliefs that it was propaganda to others being grateful that AMD finally shared some additional information with their Linux customers about the fglrx development cycle. While the article was far from being propaganda, what had outraged a number of open-source developers were AMD's comments on the R200 support or there the lack of. In this article, we have a few additional comments to share along with what some open-source developers had to say about AMD's information."
Thread beginning with comment 246551
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: no surprises
by butters on Sat 9th Jun 2007 13:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: no surprises"
butters
Member since:
2005-07-08

Graphics hardware was born and raised just like any other bus device, but industry forces are putting graphics on a collision course with the CPU. The graphics vendors will need to confront the reality that graphics is becoming a special case of stream processing and a sibling of the logic and vector units in today's processor pipelines.

Today, graphics hardware is programmed using graphics APIs like OpenGL and lesser-known APIs for HPC applications. These interfaces call down into proprietary drivers to dispatch work to the GPU. In the future, graphics hardware will be targeted by compilers and virtual machines, much like CPUs.

Graphics vendors will have to decide whether to open their ISAs to allow free software compiler and virtual machine packages to target their hardware or to restrict their hardware to proprietary code generation tools. Choosing the closed route will be suicide in a market tightly bound to developer mindshare.

Intel's Larrabee project is a clear indication that graphics hardware is on an evolutionary course toward the same programming model we've been using for decades on CPUs. The central idea is to make graphics an extension of the x86 ISA. This will make compiler support simpler and more effective, especially for free software suites like GCC, and it will open the doors for the development of more powerful interfaces for graphics, multimedia, and scientific programming.

This is one of those issues where market forces will eventually demand an open approach. In the short-term, Intel will lead, AMD will waffle, and NVIDIA will stay the course. Those that believe that their drivers are a competitive advantage will ultimately realize that capability is the fundamental consideration.

It doesn't matter how many FPS you push in a particular game if you can't support the latest desktop effects or the new codec acceleration library. Open graphics will make way for growth outside of the high-end gaming market, whereas closed graphics vendors are relegated to one-trick ponies.

NVIDIA has already put decided to put all of their eggs in one basket, claiming that it would be foolish to go after Intel in the mainstream graphics market. Maybe they're right, and AMD is charting a course for failure. NVIDIA has chosen to target a mature market with well-known requirements. They'd rather dominate a stable market than compete vigorously in a growing market.

Both Intel and NVIDIA have sensible strategies with clear intentions. AMD is pandering to the free software community for no clear reason as they fail to compete favorably with NVIDIA on the high-end. They have an identity crisis to go along with their execution missteps. It's easy to argue that AMD is headed for tough times, but I'll reserve judgment since they are currently at the very bottom of their cyclical competitive position.

Reply Parent Score: 5