On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 15:33 -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Adam Jackson <ajackson@xxxxxxxxxx> said: > > You have a card that ATI actively refuses to allow open source > > developers to release code for. You should let them know how you feel > > about that. > > Can we get a list of cards (at least chips) that do and cards that don't > work with the X.org radeon driver? The man page still says "2d only" > for all R300 and above chips, and I know that at least some of them have > 3d support (even if it is still considered beta, it is enabled). The generations, roughly R100: 7000 - 7500 R200: 8500 - 9250 R300: 9500 - X300 R400: any other X+3digits R500: X+4digits (sometimes called X1k) R600: no marketing name yet, but probably will be X2k There is no 2D support for any R500 chip. Roughly this means any Radeon named X + four digits, _except_ for the recently-announced X1050 which is a rebadged X300 (so that X1k could mean "Vista compatible" while also having a cheap low-end card available, yay marketing). It also means several FireGL V-series cards, but there's no easy way to tell _which_ ones just by looking at the numbers. And it also means several Mobility chips, but again, no consistent naming (although if you see M50-something or higher it's likely to be R500-based). Dear ATI: Your marketing names could suck-start a Harley. There is 3D support for basically all other Radeon chips, except for two. The RN50 is more or less a re-binned RV100 with no QA done to the 3D engine, so while it's there it rarely works. These usually say ES1000 on the card and come in server boxes, so you don't need to worry about them. The other unsupported chipset is the "XPRESS 200" and variants, which are otherwise R400-series laptop chips, but include some wacky PCIE memory controller that no one's figured out yet (and that obviously ATI aren't talking about). The xpress could probably be made to work with a little poking; the RN50 is just junk. The R500 is virtually identical, as far as we're concerned, with the R400. The only difference is the output setup and that the register banks have moved around. It's that setup bit that's the problem. > I have an AMD system, so AFAIK I can't get an Intel card (aren't they > all integrated?). My only choices then for 3d with non-proprietary > drivers are ATI cards, right? If you insist on getting cards and post-DX7-level 3D, yes. Motherboards are reasonably cheap. There's still the Matrox G-series cards but they're DX7-ish. > I opened a bugzilla about the man page recently: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227342 > > I would submit a patch, but reading through the code, I'm not sure I > know exactly what is supported and what is not. It looks like all the > R3xx chips should work (for at least some degree of "work"), while no > R4xx chips are supported. Nah, R400 works, I've tested it on an X800. The r300 DRI driver covers both the R300 and R400 generations, and will probably cover R500 once we figure it out. R300 was the point where they ditched the fixed geometry pipeline internally and did everything in terms of shaders, and there's nothing really fundamentally different since. We think R500 added multitasking but that's about it. The r300 3d driver could use some love though, it's still got some obvious brain-damage. Fun way to get involved, if anyone's looking for a challenge. - ajax -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list