An anonymous reader writes:
AMD has made available its new AMDGPU Linux graphics driver comprised of a brand new DRM/KMS kernel driver, a new xf86-video-amdgpu X11 driver, and modifications to libdrm and Gallium3D. This new AMDGPU driver is designed for supporting AMD's next-generation hardware with no support differences for currently supported Radeon GPUs. While yet to be released, this new AMDGPU driver is the critical piece to the new unified driver strategy with Catalyst where their high performance proprietary driver will now become limited to being a user-space binary component that uses this open-source kernel driver.
Can't they just get it right?
By aaaaaaargh!
•
2015-Apr-21 04:54
• Score: 3
• Thread
I know I'm ranting, but graphics cards are without doubt the most annoying piece of gear I own. I have used ATI cards so far but they always have problems, be it overheating at normal clock speed (my current R9 280), driver problems, crashes, flickering in OpenGL. So I'm thinking about switching to NVIDIA for my next machine, only to hear from reliable pro-audio people that these cards often cause problems with the audio drivers of professional external sound cards like horrible crackling noises.
Do I really need to buy two expensive PCs in order to work on GNU/Linux, play a flight simulator and record music?
AMD more FLOSS friendly than most
By RanceJustice
•
2015-Apr-21 04:59
• Score: 5, Interesting
• Thread
Perhaps you're an AC trolling, but in case someone is actually interested in a reply, it doesn't seem that you're giving AMD nearly enough credit.
Now, I grant that Intel has a great policy when it comes to providing driver components, being open sourced For those who aren't going to use their GPU for anything more intensive than watching media, an Intel integrated GPU is probably sufficient. However, given that Intel's GPUs are orders of magnitude weaker than discrete modern GPUs, those who wish to use graphically intensive creative software, use GPU-preferred workflows for certain tasks (ie crypto-currency mining, video encoding, anything with OpenCL etc..), or just plain wish to play modern 3D games, Intel's hardware is likely insufficient.
Thus, users have the choice between AMD and Nvidia, and of the two AMD is MUCH more free software / open source friendly, as well as overall more ethically aligned than its competitor. To answer your question, especially if you're not gaming, you do not need a binary blob to have a working AMD GPU on Linux. The open source "ati" driver has been honed over the last few years to the point that for many it provides not only great 2D performance and support for video acceleration, but a bit of 3D as well. Yes, they offer the binary "Catalyst" driver as an option (which supports pretty much all the high end 3D acceleration that someone purchases a discrete GPU to use) so if you're going to be gaming and doing intense 3D work it is a better choice, but - aforementioned open source driver is always available.
AMD has actually gone out of their way to embrace open source and the Linux community. . Much of the bias against AMD is left over from ATI's disastrous drivers (even proprietary) back in the day. They knew they had a lot of ground to make up in Linux performance (not necessarily openess...) when they acquired ATI, and its pretty impressive how they've managed to catch up to Nvidia. Subsequently, they put lots of emphasis on contributing to the FOSS driver projects. They aren't keeping Catalyst proprietary so far simply because they're evil, but because of patents and other tech licensed to third parties that go back years. In their overall business plan, they clearly favor openness compared to Nvidia. Where NV creates proprietary implementations and engines like their G-Sync monitors and the frustrating presence of PhysX in gaming, AMD champions open standards and projects such as FreeSync, OpenCL, and Vulkan.
In fact, the release of AMDGPU and in fact their entire unified driver plan leads to more openness. As the article notes, this will mean that the vast majority of AMD's GPU driver components will be completely free software.! Where Catalyst used to be a completely different animal in every way, now it will only be just an additional binary component that can be added. This is one reason why it is being written with the next generation of hardware in mind (though it may be partially compatible with some current cards); they need to have some entirely new hardware etc....that doesn't require certain patented/licensed tech. This is a great advance for openness as well as driver quality. While it would be great if they were able to instantly fully open the entire Catalyst driver stack, one would be remiss to not see the current path as progress.
While I can only speak from personal experience (and I've owned both Nvidia and AMD GPUs. At current, I'm using an AMD 290x), running an AMD GPU under Linux is viable. Sure, there are issues that can arise same as dealing with any other non-kernel-included Linux driver. If you want to stay entirely Free Software, there is a FLOSS driver that will likely work well unless you plan to use a lot of 3D or OpenCL etc. If you want 3D acceleration and you're willing to go binary, Catalyst is an option. In the future, the openness, compatibility, performance, and ease of use will likely increase with AMD's unified driver plan we're reading about here. AMD is far from perfect, but they do seem to be interested in making FLOSS a part of their future, along with a whole slew of open technologies.