Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Thu 13th Jan 2011 17:13 UTC, submitted by Michael
Linux "Now that the kernel mode-setting page-flipping for the ATI Radeon DRM kernel module has been merged into the Linux 2.6.38 kernel and the respective bits have been set in the xf86-video-ati DDX, we're in the process of running new open-source ATI graphics benchmarks under Linux. Our initial results (included in this article) show these latest improvements to cause some major performance boosts for the open-source ATI driver as it nears the level of performance of the proprietary Catalyst driver."
Thread beginning with comment 457847
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: great
by lemur2 on Fri 14th Jan 2011 09:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: great"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

And this "the open-source ones will soon catch up to proprietary ones" is nonsense. That's been touted for years and years and they're not even close.


Actually, the original article has some games for which the open drivers are already close:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ati_r500_pflippe...

and even a couple where it is ahead:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ati_r500_pflippe...

This is only after the first "low hanging fruit" optimistaion effort, there is a lot more improvement to come.

As for the contention that there are "missing features" ... the only one that is missing now is an API to the hardware video decoder dedicated circuitry. Even that can be overcome via use of GLSL instead.

OpenGL support is a bit thin for some GPUs also, but that will rapidly improve.

Linux may not suit your particular uses, fair enough, I wouldn't argue otherwise. However, that is no reason to dismiss it in general. It can be a perfect fit for some uses ... for example, I am stictly NOT a gamer but I do like to browse the Internet and I do not want my machine to be used as part of a botnet, or as a colection device for my Internet banking passwords.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: great
by lucas_maximus on Fri 14th Jan 2011 12:09 in reply to "RE[3]: great"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I am stictly NOT a gamer but I do like to browse the Internet and I do not want my machine to be used as part of a botnet, or as a colection device for my Internet banking passwords.


Windows does not automatically become part of a botnet ... stop spreading FUD.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: great
by lemur2 on Fri 14th Jan 2011 12:51 in reply to "RE[4]: great"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I am stictly NOT a gamer but I do like to browse the Internet and I do not want my machine to be used as part of a botnet, or as a colection device for my Internet banking passwords.


Windows does not automatically become part of a botnet ... stop spreading FUD.
"

Where did I say it did?

Do you deny that botnets are composed of Windows machines?

As I said, I do not want my machine to become part of a botnet. This is not FUD, it is fact ... I really, truly do not want my machine to become part of a botnet.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: great
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 14th Jan 2011 23:07 in reply to "RE[4]: great"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

"I am stictly NOT a gamer but I do like to browse the Internet and I do not want my machine to be used as part of a botnet, or as a colection device for my Internet banking passwords.


Windows does not automatically become part of a botnet ... stop spreading FUD.
"

If you read lemming2's recent posts, you'll see that he's adopted a new talking point to justify that position. His argument is essentially that all closed source software should be presumed to contain malware, because you can't prove with 100% certainty that it doesn't. Which is exactly the reasoning used by people who say "if you value privacy, then you must have something to hide."

Reply Parent Score: 2