well new features were added to the r600 driver lately,i remember reading about shader cache in the mesa mailing list,so not all work goes to the radeonsi part.
fglrx is dead. AMD abandoned it in Q3 or Q4 2015. It still requieres xorg-server 1.17 and will never receive updates. AMD is working on the opensource drivers instead.
Time spent in maintaining fglrx would be - as honorable the intention is - well spent otherwise .
New linux games dont even run on catalyst and wine performance is terrible with it,i have tested it and can give numbers or screenshots,also amd stopped contributing to fglrx 2 years ago, anything else is just prolonging its inevitable death.
Get back when it gets 4.5.
Also, I had no problems running CS:GO.
Now, thank you… we don’t need people that think there only exist their own needs?
[quote=“BS86, post:22, topic:17972, full:true”]Time spent in maintaining fglrx would be - as honorable the intention is - well spent otherwise .[/quote]It has use cases. You can’t just pretend your blind motivation to stand alone without weighting them.
I dont piss over choice but sometimes people have to face reality,also great effort goes to support calatlyst with the latest linux kernel but i think it is not worth it for what it offers, just my opinion though.
OpenGL 4.5 was added with Mesa 17.0 - now we are already at 17.0.2 with 17.1 being at the door.
Old card’s that don’t support OpenGL 4 and later will never receive support for it as it is a hardware limitation.
Also soft openGL 4.0 support is being worked on for some r600g gpus, that have only max openGL 3.3 support currently. source: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=FP64-libSoftFloat-February-Mesa
Men, you don’t even seem to be able to read each other posts.
Ok my bad, you were replying to him. Sorry for misunderstanding.
Np, i didnt reply to him we just posted within a few secs difference.
Still using Catalyst here, seems more stable on emulators such as PCSX. I would love to use the open source drivers however I could not get PCSX + manjaro with the open source drivers working on my system. (Radeon R7 350)
As of now, as it turns out, Radeon 76xxm is still not supported by AMDGPU. That is based on Thames architecture.
video-ati should be the best option for it.
Since this thread is still on the 1st page:
- Catalyst works great on kernel 4.9.52;
- It still seems to be the only performant option for Radeon 7870XT cards (and possibly others based on Tahiti LE chips) on Linux due to a long-standing bug in the open source drivers.
If I really need (proprietary)Catalyst/fglrx, then I use @Vi0L0’s very well maintained “catalyst-test” from AUR, notwithstanding manjaro, (downgrading Arch’s Xorg and/or Kernel versions if need be), on my slightly older stuff, 'cause it’s handy, and it works great.
But honestly, other than that, NO, I don’t bother with catalyst very much anymore, and neither does anyone else.
it’s time to get on with the more-or-less (opensource) amdgpu,… future for better or worse?
I just wish nvidia would do the same ! lol.
But then again, there’s always someone with a reason to cry about forever supporting something?
I’ve no issue to support it as long as I’m able to compile it with newer kernels, even when the driver is really old by now.
@philm What do you think about a own repo for Legacy stuff. Where you can move EOL kernel to, catalyst and who knows what else. That would be not active by default but available for users who need/want it.
because beside the users who know that they need catalyst, we have quite many users who just “try” catalyst and are then unable to boot or cant come back to the free drivers.
The only reason for that, is that x.org is not restored.
Which seems more a fault on mhwd side than any (especially since the same ideal mechanism is probably going to be useful with more than just catalyst - e.g. AMDGPU-PRO or maybe nvidia legacy)
Handle that and “those who want to try” will stop to complain.
As long as Manjaro depends on Arch we can not make sure that it always will work. Just like now when sddm blocks uninstallation of the catalyst stuff and I think its a smart Idea to have a working “core system” for everyone and a special Manjaro Repo for special cases.
I’m not sure why this has to be treated any different than any other issue.
Did somebody proposed separated repositories when arch switched to problematic openssl or libdrm?
You can not make sure that everything will always work and that’s fine.
I could understand if now we were talking about having to reinvent the wheel to fix this, but seriously it’s probably going to be a one liner (once the right people decide the UI philosophy, but that’s another matter)