r9 m275x driver question

graywolf.theheathen

graywolf.theheathen

Member
I currently use Linux Mint 17.3 XFCE and fglrx-updates. Most things run fairly well.
Now. Looking ahead to the future and Ubuntu releases no longer supporting fglrx does anyone on here have enough knowledge on the other options to help me make a decision?

AMDGPU?
RadeonSI?
Other?
 
What? How can Ubuntu no longer support fglrx?
Do you mean the fglrx drivers won't automatically install anymore?

That really sucks! Of course you can just install it yourself with the Driver Manager and a proper PPA
 
Probably has something to do with AMD helping develop the open-source driver.
Which works better than their proprietary driver in most cases.
 
Mint 17.3 uses a LOT of Ubuntu updates, wonder if fglrx drivers are gonna be a problem for AMD video card users? I sure hope not.
 
Nvidia has a long-ish history of supporting Linux with drivers...AMD...not so much.

How well AMD is supported today I can't say as I've always stayed with Nvidia.

But it sure doesn't help Linux as a whole if AMD is going to abandon us.

I maybe totally wrong ..but hasn't AMD done this before a few years back...stopped supporting Linux...or am I aging faster than I hoped!? ":O}
 
Seems like another way AMD is loosing us more Linux gamers.
 
AMD is a smaller operation than we'd like it to be. Perhaps their periodic lack of support for their Vidcards in Linux comes down to an available funds question?
 
Good insight George, you might be wrong, You may be right! I don't know!
But that's beside the point, Good insight!

We do this for fun...they do it for money!
For us to have fun they MUST make money...it's all connected to eating and paying the rent and stuff.
For Sure AMD isn't trying to spite anyone. So lack of money looks a likely culprit.
 
I strongly supported AMD back in the days of the Athlon. In fact, you and I both waited in the dark and cold for hours for the chance to acquire one for free. Ah, the sweet two complete years when AMD was solidly ahead of Intel in CPU performance!
For some reason I doubted AMD's wisdom in buying ATI. Perhaps GPU's seemed less than a solid choice when standing in for a CPU?
Interestingly, a GPU is a better choice for SOME kinds of computing, but that was years after the AMD-ATI marriage.
TBH, AMD's usage of the GPU confused me, and it still does. I didn't claim to be the sharpest card in the deck.
 
I wonder if purchasing ATI is one of the reasons the are still in-the-game?
I read a few articles on AMD and their CEO... it wasn't looking good... but there is always market share when you have one competitor: Intel
So I figure they entered the Video Card market because again only one competitor: Nvidia

That would be like Intel purchasing Nvidia. They would reign in the CPU and GPU markets.
I love AMD processors, even now! I know they aren't as fast, but that is in the hard-core expensive range. If you are on a budget a 4-core AMD processor is amazing for only $100.00 (sometimes even less)

Apparently Radeon cards are doing really well in Windows, but in Linux they are 2nd behind Nvidia and its only because of Driver optimization. There is nothing wrong with the hardware performance, its the drivers. So sad because imagine how many more gamers would come to Linux if AMD got their "stuff" together?
 
You make a very valid point, Booman. It's only because Intel is a huge octopus of a corporation that AMD is in their shadow. It was so sweet that tiny AMD stole a TWO year march over the P4(?), if I remember the Athlon vs Intel time period correctly. AMD processors are still a great bargain. I remember reading that no matter how small a direct competitor of Intel's that AMD becomes, Intel will HAVE to keep AMD alive. Even if gifts of cash became necessary. Seems that there is one tooth left in the anti-monopoly laws. A baby tooth, to be sure, but a tooth nonetheless.
 
I've always liked AMD
If I had the money I might purchase Intel CPU's but I'm absolutely happy with my AMD processors. I have 3 of them:
  • Athlon 3-core
  • Phantom 3-core
  • 6-core
 
I made the switch to Intel long ago...
Someone tell me if I'm dreaming ...
But didn't AMD force Intel's hand into un-locking it's CPU's?

Seems like the celey was in response to AMD's cheep overclockables; among many many other things of course, but played it's small part in nudging an unlocked series of chips from Intel
 
Last edited:
I remember OCing for the very first time with a Celeron 300. The processor was inexpensive compared to Pentium processors of the same vintage (its weakness was a very small L2 Cache). It came on a rather large supporting card (hope this isn't ancient history for everyone) with four solder traces that had to be interrupted in order to run the thing at 450 Mhz. IIRC. Most people covered the "pins" so that they couldn't contact their opposite numbers in the CPU's slot on the mainboard.

The danger of doing this was that if any one of the four solder "pins" contacted the juice it was supposed to get (when running normally) poof, dead processor.

I decided to get serious, I bought a magnifying visor and some needle files. Then I cut through the solder traces that led to the "pins," actually gold coated "fingers" on the bottom of the circuit board that the Celeron was mounted on.
Excellent, permanent overclocking, no chance of blue smoke!

Can't remember if this was before or after code name "Sledgehammer." I'm lucky to be able to buy a new CPU every five years or so. Truth be to tell, I don't really need the processing power I have in my latest box. But that guy Daniel~ insists on an i7, so is my i5 THAT much of a sin? I wish AMD made better processors and Intel made lousier ones.
 
cloasters said:
It came on a rather large supporting card
Click to expand...
Man, I haven't seen a CPU on a riser card in a long time.
I remember ECS released a motherboard that was AMD and Intel compatible. They had a socket for one CPU and a riser card for the other CPU. I thought it was soooo cool
I've seen Mac G5's with Memory riser cards... that was interesting to see as well.
 
cloasters said:
I remember OCing for the very first time with a Celeron 300. The processor was inexpensive compared to Pentium processors of the same vintage (its weakness was a very small L2 Cache). It came on a rather large supporting card (hope this isn't ancient history for everyone) with four solder traces that had to be interrupted in order to run the thing at 450 Mhz. IIRC. Most people covered the "pins" so that they couldn't contact their opposite numbers in the CPU's slot on the mainboard.

The danger of doing this was that if any one of the four solder "pins" contacted the juice it was supposed to get (when running normally) poof, dead processor.

I decided to get serious, I bought a magnifying visor and some needle files. Then I cut through the solder traces that led to the "pins," actually gold coated "fingers" on the bottom of the circuit board that the Celeron was mounted on.
Excellent, permanent overclocking, no chance of blue smoke!

Can't remember if this was before or after code name "Sledgehammer." I'm lucky to be able to buy a new CPU every five years or so. Truth be to tell, I don't really need the processing power I have in my latest box. But that guy Daniel~ insists on an i7, so is my i5 THAT much of a sin? I wish AMD made better processors and Intel made lousier ones.
Click to expand...

I didn't in the least remembert doing any of that! Boy you brought back memories George!
Many thanks! ":O}
 
Wow, a dual socket ECS brand AMD or Intel CPU compatible mainboard. Thank you for the memory jog, Booman! My very first machine was given to me by a friend's GF. It was a Hyundai 19 Mhz 386, nearly unknown in the USA at that time, but a very well built box. With 30-pin Memory cards. It was extremely difficult to remove those little 30-pin cards without breaking their tiny lock in their slot on the motherboard. A whisper of a "ping," and a tiny piece of plastic flew into space. Necessitating the use of jury-rigged rubber bands and whatnot to be able to use the destroyed slot. I remember that a single 4 Mb 30-pinner cost me $96. And that was a large capacity (SIMM? or DIMM ) for that motherboard.


I remember the Celly 300 overclock most likely because I felt like Joe Cool in swiping 150 free Mhz clock speed from Intel, and doing it the difficult yet foolproof way. Sheesh Daniel~, I bet you posted exactly how to accomplish that pioneering OC on AOA!

Not too long after that you could OC the Celeron 350 to 500 Mhz doing the same thing, iirc. I bought a relatively expensive pre-tested Celeron 350 from a dude somewhere online and it ran at 500 Mertz very cooly indeed. The price difference between Celerons and P4's was huge, the P4's cost a lot. Intel made you PAY for a decent L2 cache.

Once upon a time CPU's ran at Mhz clock speed. Hard to believe that nowadays. It's easier if you're old and gray.
 
I remember ALL of this stuff. Lolz.

I also remember the memory management programs we used to run to fit games and such into the tiny memory capacities we had in DOS environments. EMM386 was the native, Microsoft DOS one, but QEMM was a third-party program, and I was a beta tester for that. It was tricky to do, but the only way to get those early games to run worth a damn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top