News - Intel Follows AMD : non-NDA'd GPU documentation

[Saist]

Story here : http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=11765

Documents here : http://www.x.org/docs/intel/

Only question now is when Nvidia will do the same.

[joany]

Originally Posted by Saist

Only question now is when Nvidia will do the same.

I have a different question. If NVidia provide updated proprietary linux drivers free of charge in a timely manner, why is it important from a purely practical sense whether or not they provide open source ones?

I didn't ask this question to stir up controversy ... I honestly don't know the answer and would like to get your opinion.

[Saist]

... hmm... I'm trying to think of the right way to put this in simple terms.

Case in point would be 3DFX. 3DFX used to be a high profile video card vendor and you'll find a lot of their Voodoo cards in older high-performance systems from years past. However, driver support for Voodoo cards is poor at best. 3D Rendering really doesn't work, at least not as far as I can manage. While there are projects to handle OpenGL to GL calls, most of them are dead. Ergo, using perfectly operational Voodoo cards in a Linux PC is generally only possible while using the VESA driver.

Now, had 3DFX released programming documentation and had an Open-Licensed driver, it would be possible to build support for their cards into the current Linux architecture.

So, first point is: hardware security. Even if the vendor goes bust, you are not locked out from being able to effectively use their products.


Second case in point would be the Radeon 8500 series. This series encompassed all releases from the original Radeon 8500 to the 9250 release. So, there are many Radeon 8500 architecture cards in use today. However, AMD/ATi dropped support for these cards from their official driver back in 2006.

Ergo, as X.org moves on and adds features, and as the Linux kernel changes, the older finalized 8.28 release can reach the point of being completely incompatible. However, because of released programming documentation on the Radeon 8500, there is the X.org ATi driver... which in recent releases offers up to 90% of the performance and capabilities. Major features such as TV-Out support are being added in.

Even if the existing driver is not improved anymore, because the source code is available, that driver can be compiled against any new kernel, and any new release of X.org. So, no matter what happens with Linux... as long as it runs on the hardware that supports the 8500's AGP or PCI interface... you'll get 3D support.

So, second point is similar to the first. Older functional hardware that the vendor no longer can support either due to time or resources, the communities can pick up support on.


Third case in point is the current RadeonHD 2x00 and 3x00 cards. While these cards can accelerate video, they have their video acceleration hardware locked in with DRM hardware. That was mentioned in this thread here : http://www.mepislovers.org/forums/sh...ad.php?t=12496

Hardware video support for these cards will need to be reverse-engineered, but knowing the programming structure will go a long ways towards working toward a viable solution.

So, third point is that feature support can be added where the vendor may not be able to add features or expose features due to licensing or possible patent issues.

****

Now, there are other soft reasons... such as having a "Free" driver that can be used in GPLv2 style licensing without issue.

[joany]

Thanks, Saist! That was a great response. You really cleared up that question for me.

[Saist]

oh. one other benefit from a technical standpoint.

Intel's GPU's typically use a tile-based architecture : http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/chi...y/i915g_2.html

This architecture is also used in other older GPU's from PowerVR, such as the Kyro line-up and the Sega Dreamcast.

Theoretically then, Intel's GPU documentation may shed light or help attempts to reverse engineer other GPU solutions that do not have proper driver support.

So, practical point number 4 is that Open-Drivers and documentation can allow driver support on completely different platforms with similar traits.

[m_pav]

Originally Posted by Saist

Story here : Only question now is when Nvidia will do the same.

Good question Saist. I have been banging hard on nvidias door for some time now, and I have not been shy on telling them why I've stopped selling nvidia cards unless a customer expressly wants a particular one. Since the announcement of the ATI's move, I have been gnawing away on their reps ears and how fortunate that Intel have stepped up too. Now I have even more ammo. For the last 2 months, I have sold 5 ATI to 1 Nvidia, whereas in the past, it was 10+ nvidia to 1 ATI.

Of course, I do it in a very professional manner, sometimes taking up to 2 hours to complete a short but very direct "letter" to their team, and following it up with other action, such as placing snippets of it and their responses on public platforms like the wikipedia for everybody to see, while making them aware of my actions.

Maybe my small efforts will help them to make a change for the better and start to really support Linux, rather than just paying us lip service.

Mike P

I dont get this 'free' bit! You bought the Hardware,wheres the software to use it?

This is why I buy Nvidia instead of ATI ,at least there are decent GnuLinux drivers as well as the other variety.

I do not see the point of any hardware being hobbled by restricting its use to any particular OS.

eddie

Originally Posted by joany

I didn't ask this question to stir up controversy ... I honestly don't know the answer and would like to get your opinion.

In my opinion, one of the best reasons for having the drivers open-source is that it (apart from the reasons Saist mentioned) makes for a better out-of-the-virtual-box experience. There's no need to download a specific driver to be able to get decent 3D performance, it's just there.

True, MEPIS makes it easy to get up and running with the proprietary driver but it would be easier still if it was installed and enabled by default.

And with just a closed-source driver, there always is the possibility that a kernel update or x.org update will break compatibility with the driver. Imagine a newbie trying to fix a non-working X...all lots of fun there.

Oh, and it would make for a better BSD experience as well...last time I checked, the Nvidia driver for FreeBSD wasn't as well developed as the Linux version. Granted, that was some time ago so may not be the case anymore.

[Flashback]

Originally Posted by mista_ed

I dont get this 'free' bit! You bought the Hardware,wheres the software to use it?

This is why I buy Nvidia instead of ATI ,at least there are decent GnuLinux drivers as well as the other variety.

I do not see the point of any hardware being hobbled by restricting its use to any particular OS.

eddie

ATI's XORG drivers are, at the moment, a lot better than the nvidia ones (to my knowlege), because ATI's released the specifications etc. to their cards, like Intel just did.

And personally, I vastly prefer ATi's Catalyst software to any control panel, windows or linux, that I've used from nvidia.

[rogerdugans]

I learned details of a few things I suspected before, so I am glad this discussion came up. :)

For years now I have basically stuck with NVidia cards as they have better 3D at the cost of using the proprietary driver... but at least it works well.

The same could not be said of ATI in the past- I spent a month or so testing and benching with an ATI 9800 Pro back in the day.

And I will also say this about ATI in recent times:
great improvement in the proprietary driver as well.
I have a laptop with ATI graphics, and while it is no gaming machine, performance is nearly as good as windows, which could just not be said in the past...
And installation is a snap, comparatively.

Now, I would prefer to avoid proprietary drivers entirely, but I make a compromise between that, my needs and my time...

Hopefully, this will improve things further. :)