User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

R500 initial driver release

From:  "Jerome Glisse" <j.glisse-AT-gmail.com>
To:  "XOrg Devel List" <xorg-AT-freedesktop.org>
Subject:  R500 initial driver release announcement
Date:  Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:55:38 +0200
Archive-link:  Article, Thread

Over the past couple of months, a small group of people has been working
on reverse engineering the r500-based AMD video cards.  Everyone involved
worked on this in whatever free time they had, which is why this has
taken so long.

The code released today is able to initialise and set video modes on
rv515 and rv530 (X1300 up to X1600); we still lack proper initialisation
for r520 & r580 (X1800 and above, some X1600) because of lack of time
and hardware.

The Xorg driver was put together by Daniel Stone who also did a lot
of the initial reverse engineering, Matthew Garrett who provided
helpful assistance on the driver and feedback, Kyle McMartin who
cheered us up and provided insightful comments, Oliver McFadden
who also helped in testing the driver, and Jérôme Glisse who did
the rest of the reverse engineering and driver work.  We are
also, of course, very thankful to the X.Org, DRI and Mesa communities
(which in fact is the same community with different names), who
provided help to the few of us who did not have a whole good
understanding of everything involved in mode setting.

The knowledge for good randr 1.2 support is already gathered and
available in the register descriptions.  We might add this in coming
days as time permit.  This effort has been done in order to provide the
best support to AMD graphics card consumers, without any help of any
kind from AMD.  We believe that a good driver supporting this
cards can only be an open source driver where everyone with enough
skills or time to acquire needed skills can fix things.

The current roadmap is:
- Find out missing bits for r520 and r580 hardware initialisation,
- RandR 1.2 support with a dumb memory allocator,
- Simple 2D acceleration (we will put more focus on 3D acceleration
 as now Xorg provides infrastructure to best utilise 3D drivers
 to display the desktop, thanks to the Glucose interface),
- 3D reverse engineering: We believe that this engine is very similar
 to the r300 3D engine which has already mostly been reverse
 engineered,
- TTM DRM driver for proper memory management,
- and likely port the driver to new DRM modesetting work.

Help is, obviously, welcome for any of these.

We are lacking people with time and interest for working on
reverse-engineering r5xx.  Don't believe anyone who tells you that only
rocket scientists can properly write a graphics driver: you mostly just
need to understand how a GPU works (not much more complex than a CPU's
vector unit), and know how to code in C.

Of course  here is the URL to grab source code:
git clone git://anongit.freedesktop.org/git/avivo/xf86-video-avivo

Please note that this is intended only for people interested in working
on this and normal users should not try it yet as it actually needs you to
add your graphic card pci id in order for it to work.

Jérôme Glisse
on behalf on the r500 crew:
Daniel Stone
Matthew Garrett
Oliver McFadden
Kyle McMartin


Here is a personal view on the matter:

I would like to take advantage of this announcement to stress that
AMD hurt its consumers by not providing specifications of their
hardware to the open source community  which end up in providing
a bad experience to them.

I also believe they are no sensible technical informations in this
specifications as proven by others graphics manufacturer who give
out specifications: XGI; or good driver source code well documented
almost as good as specifications: Intel.

So, AMD, please be respectful of the community and at least give a
detailed motivations and reasons for not providing your graphics
hardware specifications. I look forward to the day when the
open source community will be able to work with AMD for providing
to AMD's consumers the best experiences with their hardware on
any open source operating systems.

Jérôme Glisse


(Log in to post comments)

R500 initial driver release

Posted Jun 12, 2007 19:55 UTC (Tue) by meyert (subscriber, #32097) [Link]

WOOOHOOO!
Thanks for all the excellent work.

R500 initial driver release

Posted Jun 12, 2007 22:09 UTC (Tue) by tcoppi (guest, #44423) [Link]

Seconded, this is great news. This is the chance for AMD/ATI to jump in and show us they're really committed to fast,stable drivers for Linux.

R500 initial driver release

Posted Jun 12, 2007 23:17 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]

Otherwise it would hurt the image of AMD as a company. If the company is so protective of the information essential for writing free drivers for their video cards, can I expect them to be more cooperative when it comes to the processors?

Perhaps most gamers don't care about licenses of the software they run, but many system administrators do.

R500 initial driver release

Posted Jun 13, 2007 8:14 UTC (Wed) by karlmag (guest, #4415) [Link]

I can both second and third the point about sysadmins caring about
licenses.

One of the things that creates most trouble in my experience is to try to
sanely support a bunch of different Ati and nVidia cards with their
closed source drivers. Users wants/demands/needs accelerated 3D on most
part. I believe I have seen most kinds of weird crashes and stuff
like "it works with vga cables, but not with dvi". It stops being fun to
try to track down and fix it after a fairly short while.
Ideally I just want to initialize a network installation, walk away and
never hear about that machine again. (It will figure out which driver(s)
to use and which monitor(s) it has all by itself.)
To get there, it would be better if the developers could spend time to
just write driver, then use any extra time to do new and better features
instead of having to use that time to reverse engineering the hardware.

So many thanks to the folks working hard to giving us these free drivers
despite not having optimal basis to work from.


-- KarlMag

R500 initial driver release

Posted Jun 13, 2007 12:17 UTC (Wed) by harold (guest, #44046) [Link]

Thanks for your hard work!

If they gave out specs I might buy a new card instead of an older secondhand card.

R500 initial driver release

Posted Jun 13, 2007 15:48 UTC (Wed) by mbottrell (guest, #43008) [Link]

I gave up waiting for nVidia and ATI to get their act together and release OSS drivers.

As such I've switched to an Intel GMA X3000. Sure it isn't the high performer that the latest nVidia or ATI card is.. .but it's open-sourced and works a treat. :-)

Even better, it's bundled with the recent X.org releases

Read more about Intel Graphics cards here.

NB: I don't work for Intel.. just sick of the dodgy drivers ATI/nVidia release... whilst reverse engineering will provide 'a driver'... it's likely not to have the tweaks and speed-ups gamers require -- that will only come from details released by their makers.

Intel graphics vs. ATI

Posted Jun 13, 2007 17:16 UTC (Wed) by dark (guest, #8483) [Link]

"High performer" is relative. The best usable ATI card is the Radeon 9250,
how does it compare against that? :)

I'm still waiting for Intel to make an AGP card that I can stick into my
current computer. It's not time yet to buy a new computer, and it won't be
for a couple of years. Until then, I'll make do with my trusty 9250.
I even have two spares in case it breaks.

Unless ATI releases specs for its high-end cards, of course. I'd buy them
in a second. Do you hear that, ATI? I'm sitting here, waiting. With a pile
of money in my wallet. Waily waily waily, where shall I get a studly
graphics card with all this money? Oh, if only some company would offer
one to me. Then I could give them money for it. Hint hint.

Intel graphics vs. ATI

Posted Jun 14, 2007 0:45 UTC (Thu) by vondo (guest, #256) [Link]

You're looking for an AGP card? First, I don't think that'll happen. PCI-e would be great, though. Second, don't take this personally, but you don't sound like you'll drop a "pile of money" on a video card, but more like $100. That's the cost of the cards I buy too, so I'm not knocking it, but neither of us is dropping $500 every six months.

Intel graphics vs. ATI

Posted Jun 14, 2007 1:09 UTC (Thu) by dark (guest, #8483) [Link]

Ironically, my latest computer uses AGP because there weren't any PCI-e cards I could use :) Now that I have it, I can't upgrade without replacing the mainboard, and once I do that I'll want to replace everything anyway. And probably go with Intel for the graphics, instead of AMD/VIA like I usually do. (You hear that, AMD?)

You're right, I wouldn't buy a new graphics card twice a year. I would buy one once, though, and I wouldn't mind spending several hundred euros on a high-end card that comes with full specs. I'm just not willing to budge on the spec issue. There's something deeply wrong with someone who wants to sell me hardware but refuses to tell me how to use it. I can't help it that all of the usable cards can be gotten for $20 on eBay, it's up to the manufacturers to change that :)

Intel graphics vs. ATI

Posted Jun 14, 2007 2:18 UTC (Thu) by Tomasu (subscriber, #39889) [Link]

Yeah, um, I recently just installed kubuntu after a horrible experience
with CentOS and Gentoo. the r300 driver works absolutely excellent. 2d,
3d, xinerama, you name it. And I have a 9600xt. Quite a bit better than a
9250 :P

Intel graphics vs. ATI

Posted Jun 14, 2007 8:08 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

The Intel X3000 should compare quite favorably versus the ATI 9250. If the 9250 performs better, it's because of the maturity of the drivers and not anything to do with the hardware.

The Intel onboard realy does well with 3D desktops. So if you want that, then Intel is the way to go. Also since Intel now employs a number of high profile X hackers, then if you want things to have the best chances of 'just work', then Intel is the ticket.

For gaming performance it should be adiquate for the vast majority of Linux games, but the lack of dedicated RAM for the video card hurts it.

Within a couple years Intel should have dedicated video cards out. High-end versions that are intended to compete head-to-head with the best from Nvidia released first, then cheaper models as time goes on. Huge 16-core monsters with completely programmable and x86-like. Something like that.

Of course the long-term situation is that eventually all but the very high end will be integrated directly into the main proccessor as a specialized core.

Intel graphics vs. ATI

Posted Jun 15, 2007 11:45 UTC (Fri) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link]

But will the high end Intel cards have open source drivers supported at the same level as their low end cards now? From what I have heard, the reason we will never see open source drivers from ATI and Nvidia is because of all the third party licensed code they rely on. Will Intel be able to develop all this code on their own?

Pledge to support Open Source graphics drivers

Posted Jun 14, 2007 16:16 UTC (Thu) by themaxx (guest, #45767) [Link]

I have setup a pledge on Pledgebank to let AMD and nVidia know that people are ready to vote with their wallets on this issue and buy graphic cards with open source drivers. I aim to reach 1000 signatures by year end. http://www.pledgebank.com/open3d So if you really want to show you support open source drivers, you can sign the pledge, and talk about it to people you know.

Pledge to support Open Source graphics drivers

Posted Jun 14, 2007 20:46 UTC (Thu) by dark (guest, #8483) [Link]

Thanks! I signed it :)

Intel graphics vs. ATI

Posted Jun 22, 2007 7:49 UTC (Fri) by anton (subscriber, #25547) [Link]

The best usable ATI card is the Radeon 9250.
Looking at glxgears numbers as well as UT 2004 numbers, the X850XT and X800 are quite a bit faster.

The Radeon 8500/9100 is also faster than the 9250, but has not been on sale (except used) for several years.

The cards up to the 9250 have free 3D drivers thanks to information released by ATI, whereas the later cards have them thanks to reverse engineering.

how does it compare against that?
Glxgears numbers (24bpp):
6520fps Radeon X800
3503fps Radeon 9250
1550fps Intel G965/X3000 GMA
The numbers I have seen for the X3000GMA on Windows are also worse than for discrete graphics cards (so this is not a driver maturity issue). One contributing factor to that is the lower memory bandwidth of integrated graphics. If you buy a 9250 and want performance, get one with a 128-bit memory interface.

R500 initial driver release

Posted Jun 13, 2007 17:32 UTC (Wed) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link]

Seconded. My recently purchased laptop has Intel graphics - I skipped the NVidia upgrade. Ubuntu's latest live CD boots and runs flawlessly on it, including the spiffy wobbly windows, desktop cube, etc. The only binary driver is the Intel wireless and that's going away as they move the binary part into flash (I believe anyway).

Are you listening AMD/ATI and NVidia?? You LOST MY MONEY because you don't support open drivers for your hardware! I probably would have paid the extra $$$ for NVidia if open source drivers were available if only to get dedicated graphics ram instead of sharing graphics ram with main memory.

Pete

R500 initial driver release

Posted Jun 13, 2007 21:13 UTC (Wed) by yodermk (guest, #3803) [Link]

I would have got Intel graphics on my (3 month old) laptop, but couldn't find one that supported a 17" screen and WSXGA+ resolution. I don't know if the X3000 can do that. If so I'll keep it in mind for next time.

R500 initial driver release

Posted Jun 13, 2007 21:42 UTC (Wed) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link]

The laptop I have is 17" wide screen and runs native at 1920x1080 under Windoze. Under the Ubuntu live CD it ran 1600x1200 by default - I've heard that there is a tweak to the Intel graphics driver to let it do 1920x1080, but I haven't had a chance to track it down.

The graphics is Intel GMA 950.

R500 initial driver release

Posted Jun 13, 2007 22:38 UTC (Wed) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link]

You can either use the "915resolution" tool, or use Intel's new modesetting driver.

For my computer, the modesetting driver worked perfectly for a wide DVI screen, but it had some problems doing PAL TV output, apparently the BIOS defaults to NTSC, and the modesetting driver doesn't know how to change that, giving me B/W output.

PAL output support on Intel chips

Posted Jun 14, 2007 6:57 UTC (Thu) by keithp (subscriber, #5140) [Link]

Just in case you're still reading down this far...

Fetch an updated version of xrandr from git://anongit.freedesktop.org/git/xorg/app/xrandr (yes, I should make an updated release). The minor updates there include the ability to set output properties that used named values, including the TV_FORMAT property which can be set to a huge list of possible formats, including three different PAL variants. You can also adjust the margins around the screen to align the displayed image with the monitor.

PAL output support on Intel chips

Posted Jun 14, 2007 9:23 UTC (Thu) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link]

Nice! :)

I wont need it right now, as I only used the modesetting version for the widescreen monitor I set it up with at first (I'm using the computer as a server and mythtv frontend), so the old version is fine.

OTOH, the picture isn't perfectly aligned with the TV, so maybe I should play around with it.

Thanks for the heads up!

R500 initial driver release

Posted Jun 13, 2007 21:19 UTC (Wed) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link]

Yes, I just bought a laptop with Intel chip too for exactly the same
reason. For my desktop machine update I'll wait until there's an Intel
card with separate RAM (current desktop machine uses G550).

My (Nokia) tablet computer has also currently an open source graphics
driver (kernel + X server parts) I think, but unfortunately its wireless
driver is a binary blob.

R500 initial driver release

Posted Jun 14, 2007 8:09 UTC (Thu) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link]

I switched my desktop computer's mainboard to have GMA X3000, but I still use my Radeon X800 as the main card, mainly since I'd optimally like to have a ADD2 board with _two_ DVI ports for the Intel graphics, and I haven't found one in Europe. Suggestions welcome. Yes, the Radeon has only one too and even if it had more it wouldn't be supported by the open source drivers.

Also one thing that would probably be enough to get me throw the X800 away would be if 965-glsl branch would be merged to main MESA branch, since after that the Intel graphics drivers would have more features than what I have with ATI/AMD Radeon X800...

Intel for me, please

Posted Jun 14, 2007 8:13 UTC (Thu) by xav (subscriber, #18536) [Link]

Like many others, I won't buy ATI anymore, I'm just awaiting for Intel to
release a "gamer" card to update my aging desktop computer.
I just hope they won't be too long for that. Oh, and if in the meantime AMD
sees the light and releases specs/driver, the more the better.

Xav

Intel for me, please

Posted Jun 14, 2007 18:26 UTC (Thu) by pheldens (guest, #19366) [Link]

Are you aware of any open driver intel 3d benchmarks?
And where can I buy extension cards with those new intel chips?

Intel for me, please

Posted Jun 15, 2007 9:20 UTC (Fri) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]

there are no extension cards with intel chips yet. And there have been some 3d benchmarks, intel does bad because they compared heavy nvidia and ati with closed drivers vs light intel hardware and open drivers. If you compare open drivers vs open drivers, intel is always on top in the 3d area as the competition simply lacks proper 3d acceleration.

Intel for me, please

Posted Jun 15, 2007 19:10 UTC (Fri) by pheldens (guest, #19366) [Link]

tried the x850?

Intel for me, please

Posted Jun 15, 2007 19:14 UTC (Fri) by pheldens (guest, #19366) [Link]

I mean that's the fastest open driver powered 3d card.
And stuff that isn't properly hw accelerated falls back to software (Mesa) which covers most of opengl.

Intel for me, please

Posted Jul 5, 2007 21:17 UTC (Thu) by geek (guest, #45074) [Link]

and are any planned? I'd like to wait forever for ATI to open up but no actual Intel based cards isn't much of an option either.

dave


Copyright © 2007, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds