Hello, according to the discussion in the following Phoronix forum thread: https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/phoronix/latest-phoronix-articles/863332-intel-s-unreleased-3-0-x-org-driver-gets-more-fixes-for-dri3-present the generic xf86-video-modesetting DDX driver included in xorg-server seems to be better than most vendor specific xf86-video- drivers. I am wondering: Then why not ditch xf86-video-intel in favor of xf86-video-modesetting? Regards
Because it is not.
(In reply to Chris Wilson from comment #1) > Because it is not. How can you say this when looking at the reddit thread over there: https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/4cojj9/it_is_probably_time_to_ditch_xf86videointel/ ? There surely must be something to it after reading all those comments?
Because I know of the feature regressions, incompatilibities, lack of suport and bugs in the code.
xf86-video-intel is not stable for me (GPU hangs in Chrome - reported). Modesetting is rock solid. Two identical runs of gtkperf, mesa, xorg and all drivers straight out of git: First modesetting: GtkPerf 0.40 - Starting testing: Wed Apr 6 08:38:33 2016 GtkEntry - time: 0.01 GtkComboBox - time: 0.94 GtkComboBoxEntry - time: 0.77 GtkSpinButton - time: 0.06 GtkProgressBar - time: 0.16 GtkToggleButton - time: 0.32 GtkCheckButton - time: 0.10 GtkRadioButton - time: 0.17 GtkTextView - Add text - time: 0.21 GtkTextView - Scroll - time: 0.00 GtkDrawingArea - Lines - time: 0.56 GtkDrawingArea - Circles - time: 1.77 GtkDrawingArea - Text - time: 0.12 GtkDrawingArea - Pixbufs - time: 0.04 --- Total time: 5.23 Now xf86-video-intel: GtkPerf 0.40 - Starting testing: Wed Apr 6 08:41:32 2016 GtkEntry - time: 0.01 GtkComboBox - time: 1.75 GtkComboBoxEntry - time: 1.62 GtkSpinButton - time: 0.07 GtkProgressBar - time: 0.16 GtkToggleButton - time: 0.30 GtkCheckButton - time: 0.10 GtkRadioButton - time: 0.16 GtkTextView - Add text - time: 0.20 GtkTextView - Scroll - time: 0.00 GtkDrawingArea - Lines - time: 0.92 GtkDrawingArea - Circles - time: 1.63 GtkDrawingArea - Text - time: 0.12 GtkDrawingArea - Pixbufs - time: 0.02 --- Total time: 7.05
Should add that is Haswell desktop; Haswell mobile results are very similar.
(In reply to Chris Wilson from comment #3) > Because I know of the feature regressions, incompatilibities, lack of suport > and bugs in the code. Again, at least according to the reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/4cojj9/it_is_probably_time_to_ditch_xf86videointel/ and Phoronix thread: https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/phoronix/latest-phoronix-articles/863332-intel-s-unreleased-3-0-x-org-driver-gets-more-fixes-for-dri3-present it looks like there are more bugs in xf86-video-intel than in xf86-video-modesetting. Besides, what I was hinting at was: (In reply to Chris Wilson from comment #3) > Because I know of the feature regressions, incompatilibities, lack of suport > and bugs in the code. Why not improve on xf86-video-modesetting then instead of having two separate drivers? Just want to understand this.
The KODI and LibreELEC developers apparently are claiming that Intel developers would recommend to use xf86-video-modesetting instead of xf86-video-intel, see: https://github.com/LibreELEC/LibreELEC.tv/pull/136 And they are also recommending their users to stop using xf86-video-intel, see: http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=269815&pid=2315595#pid2315595 http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=269815&pid=2315913#pid2315913 Meanwhile, Phoronix did some more xf86-video-intel vs. xf86-video-modesetting benchmarks, see: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Intel-DDX-May-Tests Regards
And here we go: https://tjaalton.wordpress.com/2016/07/23/intel-graphics-gen4-and-newer-now-defaults-to-modesetting-driver-on-x/ https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/linux-graphics-x-org-drivers/intel-linux/886898-ubuntu-debian-abandon-intel-x-org-driver-for-most-hardware-moves-to-modesetting-ddx ;)
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.