AMD GPUOpen: Doubling Down On Open-Source Development

Last week, AMD began what will undoubtedly prove to be a slow trickle of information leading up to its next-generation graphics architecture launch.

In AMD GPUs 2016: HDR, FreeSync Over HDMI And New Standards, we discussed the company’s plans to implement DisplayPort 1.3 and HDMI 2.0a support, expand FreeSync availability with extensions that enable it over HDMI interfaces, and pave the way for HDR playback through its display pipeline.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Chris Angelini is an Editor Emeritus at Tom's Hardware US. He edits hardware reviews and covers high-profile CPU and GPU launches.
  • jimmysmitty
    I can understand why AMD is going more towards an open software agenda. It is hard to work with big companies and develop your own proprietary software with low R&D budgets.

    I am all for it but I do think in the end they are expecting companies to actually pick up and do this more on their own instead of nVidia who tends to work with the companies.

    One downside I see is the more access you give companies to your GPU itself, the more issues that are bound to come up. Yes you can get more performance but there is a reason why most everything in Windows runs through the API layer first, it prevents the hardware from crashing and taking Windows with it like it used to back in the Windows 9x days.

    Maybe this will work out for the best, maybe it wont. Only time will tell.
    Reply
  • firefoxx04
    Ill believe the Linux support when I see it. People seem to have good luck with AMD Linux support but I dont. I have yet to have an install go well when using the official drivers.

    Reply
  • waltsmith
    This article is just one more example of why people need to stand behind AMD, we need their competition in the marketplace.
    A monopoly by INTEL or NVIDIA is something that is good for no one expect INTEL or NVIDIA.
    Reply
  • Foe West
    Ill believe the Linux support when I see it. People seem to have good luck with AMD Linux support but I dont. I have yet to have an install go well when using the official drivers.
    Same here, but I hear that the unofficial drivers are better, I haven't gotten a chance to try them yet.
    Reply
  • royalcrown
    More likely open source because they can't seem to write good drivers lately ! No I am not an AMD hater either, they just have the stupidest bugs that shouldn't make it past QA, like the MS Surface 4 does !
    Reply
  • FinneousPJ
    Sounds great :)
    Reply
  • hannibal
    More likely open source because they can't seem to write good drivers lately ! No I am not an AMD hater either, they just have the stupidest bugs that shouldn't make it past QA, like the MS Surface 4 does !

    Both companies Nvidia and AMD have had very bad drivers from time to time... So that is not a reason to open source push this time.
    I think that pure reason is that Freesync aka adaptive sync can win because AMD and Intel both support it and so can every other company if they want to.
    OpenGPU can win, if AMD, Intel and all other GPU maker support it. The AMD is in so tight spot that it can not make big closed system, without being cornered in very tight spot.
    Reply
  • cats_Paw
    I can understand why AMD is going more towards an open software agenda. It is hard to work with big companies and develop your own proprietary software with low R&D budgets.

    I am all for it but I do think in the end they are expecting companies to actually pick up and do this more on their own instead of nVidia who tends to work with the companies.

    One downside I see is the more access you give companies to your GPU itself, the more issues that are bound to come up. Yes you can get more performance but there is a reason why most everything in Windows runs through the API layer first, it prevents the hardware from crashing and taking Windows with it like it used to back in the Windows 9x days.

    Maybe this will work out for the best, maybe it wont. Only time will tell.

    This was also one of the things that separated good companies from bad ones (in gaming that is).
    9x Win crashes were very common but there were companies that had constantly stable products, and those products could be quite amazing.

    I dont like the idea of limiting the devs throu a barrier because it creates a lazy midset for companies (kinda like fifa from EA).

    Today we have a lot of games going throu Win API and still being unplayable anyway, so why not reward those companies that want to do things well?
    Reply
  • Bloob
    I can understand why AMD is going more towards an open software agenda. It is hard to work with big companies and develop your own proprietary software with low R&D budgets.

    I am all for it but I do think in the end they are expecting companies to actually pick up and do this more on their own instead of nVidia who tends to work with the companies.

    One downside I see is the more access you give companies to your GPU itself, the more issues that are bound to come up. Yes you can get more performance but there is a reason why most everything in Windows runs through the API layer first, it prevents the hardware from crashing and taking Windows with it like it used to back in the Windows 9x days.

    Maybe this will work out for the best, maybe it wont. Only time will tell.
    Modern OSs isolate the display driver in such a way that it is extremely rare for it to affect system stability, mostly your screens just go black for a moment until the driver is reloaded (and failing that, a general display driver is loaded).

    edit: it's why, when installing / updating your display driver you don't necessarily have to boot your system, and when you do have to, you only do it once... it was different back in the day...
    Reply
  • gggplaya
    I don't see a problem with this, today's games have to be released on such a tight schedule with a crazy amount of detail in their graphics which only adds to the workload as compared to a decade ago.

    The only real solution for many companies is to use a pre-made graphics engine which has taken much of the work out of the graphics side, and allows you to focus on the actual game and content.

    So having full access to the video card is a great idea as these graphics engines may be able to squeeze out a few more fps compared to your competition on the same 3-4 graphics engines on the market which most games are based on.
    Reply