-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD announces GPUOpen - Open Sourced Gaming Development
- Thread starter tommybhoy
- Start date
It will more than likely be added once Vulkan is ratified to 1.0 and the drivers are released.
Posted in the right thread this time.
I don't know if you have Twitter Pete, but if you do you should follow Graham.
Dont have twitter but a lot in the linux space do, Something had to be said when Phoronix posted that sensationalist article implying that only the 390 and up was getting vulkan support, Brigman tried to explain but it was all over the net by then.
What was bothers me is what seems to be the lack of interest from AMD regards vulkan in general, GPUopen you would have thought would imply open API's usage too, MAybe a snipet of code, like they have for DX. That's what a lot of linux users are noticing. The competition on the other hand... Well I think you know the situation regards linux. The one good thing though is their efforts with the oss AMDGPU driver.
I could go on but it sounds like I'm ranting/getting at you personally, I'm not. It's AMD in general.
I know Vulkan isn't officially released but you see where am coming from?
I always seem to be getting at you, Sorry Matt
Awesome. Very exciting stuff, and absolutely fantastic that AMD didn't introduce their own closed source tech like NVIDIA did with Gameworks.
Dont have twitter but a lot in the linux space do, Something had to be said when Phoronix posted that sensationalist article implying that only the 390 and up was getting vulkan support, Brigman tried to explain but it was all over the net by then.
What was bothers me is what seems to be the lack of interest from AMD regards vulkan in general, GPUopen you would have thought would imply open API's usage too, MAybe a snipet of code, like they have for DX. That's what a lot of linux users are noticing. The competition on the other hand... Well I think you know the situation regards linux. The one good thing though is their efforts with the oss AMDGPU driver.
I could go on but it sounds like I'm ranting/getting at you personally, I'm not. It's AMD in general.
I know Vulkan isn't officially released but you see where am coming from?
I always seem to be getting at you, Sorry Matt
AMD have never supported Opengl to the extent nvidia has, and with declining resources I doubt it will change any time soon so we can expect to see the same with Vulkan. AMD can be congratulated on releases open source Linux driver though.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 20,679
- Location
- The KOP
Am sure once Vukan is ready AMD will have drivers on the ready.. Afterall they been very close with the API and Mantle.
Maybe the reason on slow OpenGL driver updates is because all the extra work is going into Vulkan... Time will tell! But in the mean time I wouldn't bang on about Vulkan till we see games releasing etc
Maybe the reason on slow OpenGL driver updates is because all the extra work is going into Vulkan... Time will tell! But in the mean time I wouldn't bang on about Vulkan till we see games releasing etc
I'll conceal that is is perhaps dangerous to conclude AMD's Vulkan support before it's released but history is against AMD here with respect to Linux drivers and OpenGL.
Would love for Vulkan to really get support from both AMD and Nvidia.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,524
So, I'm just looking at the GPUOpen website, and then all the news articles that said that it was going to be "open source"... the licence terms are that AMD control that source code and won't allow submissions to the main branch... so its not actually open source
Sounding more and more like what the other company does don't you think!
I think it is a matter that the main code branch is kept clean, AMD will then quality test any submissions and then integrate them into the main branch.
At the end of the day you don't want something sneaking in that will harm performance or stability while removing the original stable code.
Devs can easily use and modify the code for their own use but cannot submit the changes to the original source code in github.
I would have thought the main branch shouldn't be altered unless approved in case it breaks the code or makes it runs slowly. Sounds reasonable to me.
Except the source code for anything Gameworks related is not freely available on a website. Point me in the right direction If I'm wrong.
Depends how far you stretch "related" - most of the features used in GameWorks are detailed with sample code in nVidia's developer reference material i.e. https://developer.nvidia.com/gpugems/GPUGems3/gpugems3_pref01.html but that isn't the same as having the exact GameWorks source - but there is pretty much everything there for someone to build such a feature for themselves from ground up if they wished rather than plug it in via GameWorks.