Linked by David Adams on Thu 18th Aug 2011 19:09 UTC, submitted by Michael
Graphics, User Interfaces While the BFS scheduler is getting ready to celebrate its second birthday, in just three weeks AMD's open-source Radeon graphics driver strategy for Linux will be turning four years old . . . which has ended up being a game-changer in the Linux world. AMD continues to support open-source hardware enablement on their latest graphics processors and recently even hired more developers to work on the code and documentation. How far have they come though in four years?
Thread beginning with comment 485965
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

That's precisely my point: the older cards are now at about 80% on average. So if we apply your reasoning, then a year from now we will have the same 80% performance of the newer cards, which I wouldn't say is really "overtaking" the closed source drivers. In terms of the drivers being written for Windows vs Linux, I think there's not much of an overhead from the current Catalyst drivers being first developed for Windows. For example: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=897&num=1


In terms of pure raw performance, it is probable that open source drivers will only ever catch up to closed source drivers.

In terms of overall working, even at 80% raw performance (speed), the open source drivers are already ahead of the proprieatry graphics drivers for Linux. The open source drivers will work "out of the box", whereas the closed source drivers are simply not supported any longer. If you have an older ATI card on your Linux box, already it would be utter insanity for you to run anything other than the open source radeon driver written at Xorg.

There are some games for Linux now which work better under the open source drivers than they do under the closed source drivers. World of Padman is one.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_four_r300&nu...

World of Padman, which is powered by the ioquake3 engine like OpenArena, shed a slightly different story. The R400-based Radeon X800XL was now at 78% the speed of Catalyst and the R500-based Radeon X1800XT was actually faster on the open-source driver. The Radeon X1800XT was straight-up 25% faster on the latest open-source Linux driver code than the Catalyst driver right before its R500 series support was dropped. The rendering for both drivers in this game was also correct.


In other cases it is, of course, the other way around, as shown for OpenArena on that same page.

Being open source, this allows people to investigate exactly why World of Padman is faster than OpenArena. This in turn allows two things to happen:

(1) driver developers can focus their efforts to improve performance by seeing where OpenArena performance is low, and
(2) game developers can use the better performance in areas where World of Padman is strong as the basis of their game engines.

Just by natural evolution the performance of games on Linux will eventually be better with the open source drivers than with closed source drivers. It is inevitable.

Edited 2011-08-19 06:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

saynte Member since:
2007-12-10

Err, what?? This is the point I was discussing, first:

In a few months time it is likely that the radeon open source Gallium3D drivers will overtake the closed source driver fglrx for performance.


Then just now:

In terms of pure raw performance, it is probable that open source drivers will only ever catch up to closed source drivers.

Reply Parent Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Err, what?? This is the point I was discussing, first: "In a few months time it is likely that the radeon open source Gallium3D drivers will overtake the closed source driver fglrx for performance.
Then just now:
In terms of pure raw performance, it is probable that open source drivers will only ever catch up to closed source drivers.
"

Yes, that was definitely confused, I have to admit.

Obviously the hardware is the same for both open source drivers and closed source drivers. In some areas the closed source drivers are already optimal or nearly so, and there can be no worthwhile gains achieved beyond that no matter how hard one tries. Clearly in this sense the open source drivers will never surpass the closed source ones, it isn't possible.

Howver, having said that, there are obviously some areas for each driver where performance is not optimal (i.e. is not absolutely constrained by the common hardware). In some situations the closed source drivers are better, and in other areas the open source drivers are better. Right now the former occurs more frequently than the latter, and as an overall average the closed source drivers are better.

Howver, for some older cards, the closed source drivers are never going to get any better. AMD/ATI no longer support them.

The open source drivers have two distinct advantages. Firstly they are designed for Linux so any "impedance mismatches" between the drivers and the rest of the graphics stack can be tuned out. For closed source drivers, the drivers are tuned for Windows, and one gets what one gets on Linux.

Secondly, being open source, both the open source drivers drivers and the rest of the graphics stack can "evolve". Whatever already works better than the closed source drivers can be left strictly alone, and whatever doesn't work as well as the closed source drivers can be tuned for performance. The open source Linux graphics stack is not constrained by what works best for Windows.

Eventually, the open source Linux graphics stack will out-perform the closed source drivers, simply by exploiting areas where the closed source drivers are not optimal on Linux.

Edited 2011-08-19 07:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2