<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_REOPENED " title="REOPENED - Radeonsi on Grenada cards (r9 390) exceptionally unstable and poorly performing" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91880#c142">Comment # 142</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_REOPENED " title="REOPENED - Radeonsi on Grenada cards (r9 390) exceptionally unstable and poorly performing" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91880">bug 91880</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:0xe2.0x9a.0x9b@gmail.com" title="Jan Ziak <0xe2.0x9a.0x9b@gmail.com>"> Jan Ziak</a> <pre>(In reply to Chris Waters from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=91880#c141">comment #141</a>) > At what point did we go from talking about radeon, the driver this bug > report is about, to amdgpu? This freedesktop.org bug is a Mesa bug. The bug title is "Radeonsi ...". If the visual artifacting issue is solved in radeon.ko, the patch will probably be in short time applied to amdgpu.ko, and vice versa. > Isn't support and performance for GCN 1.1 cards rather bad on amdgpu > compared to radeon? Support for R9 390/390X (Grenada) in amdgpu.ko is basically equivalent to radeon.ko (at least on my machine). Performance is very similar too. amdgpu.ko and radeon.ko are loading the same firmware files for R9 390/390X (/lib/firmware/radeon/{hawaii,HAWAII}*.bin).</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>