News: 0001504441

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

Mesa RADV Driver Delivers Conformant Vulkan 1.3 Support For Old AMD GFX6/GFX7 GPUs

([Radeon] 5 Hours Ago Vulkan 1.3 Conformance)


While old Radeon GFX6/GFX7 era graphics processors are no longer actively supported by AMD on Windows and haven't been for quite a while, under Linux with the upstream open-source driver stack they remain supported and still enjoying improvements in large part from common code. The most recent fascinating aspect is the old AMD GFX6/GFX7 era GPUs seeing official Vulkan 1.3 support that has been deemed conformant by Khronos.

Thanks to the work of Valve's Linux graphics driver developers and other open-source developers working on the Mesa RADV driver, AMD GFX6 and GFX7 GPUs now have conformant Vulkan 1.3 support. This is for the likes of the Radeon HD 7000 series, Radeon Rx 200/300 series, and other early GCN cards prior to Polaris (GFX8). GFX6 represents CAPE VERDE, PITCAIRN, TAHITI, OLAND, and HAINAN. GFX7 is for BONAIRE, KABINI, MULLINS, KAVERI, and HAWAII GPUs.

Yes, more than decade old GPUs with the AMD Southern Islands GPUs are seeing Vulkan 1.3 conformance on open-source Linux graphics drivers...

Samuel Pitoiset of Valve opened the [1]merge request today for recognizing the Vulkan 1.3 conformance for these aging AMD Radeon GPUs:

"It's the first time RADV is Vulkan conformant on GFX6-7! 🎊

Some chips are missing because we don't have access but most of the GFX6-7 GPUs are covered."

Indeed now on the [2]Khronos.org Vulkan Conformant Products page are these various old AMD GPUs now being recognized for Vulkan 1.3 conformance:

[3]

Recognizing this Vulkan 1.3 conformance on these old AMD GPUs should be merged for Mesa 24.3.



[1] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/merge_requests/32022

[2] https://www.khronos.org/conformance/adopters/conformant-products

[3] https://www.phoronix.com/image-viewer.php?id=2024&image=vulkan_13_gfx6gfx7_lrg



schmidtbag

user1

ezst036

jeisom

Type44Q

Cryio

"It could be that Walter's horse has wings" does not imply that there is
any such animal as Walter's horse, only that there could be; but "Walter's
horse is a thing which could have wings" does imply Walter's horse's
existence. But the conjunction "Walter's horse exists, and it could be
that Walter's horse has wings" still does not imply "Walter's horse is a
thing that could have wings", for perhaps it can only be that Walter's
horse has wings by Walter having a different horse. Nor does "Walter's
horse is a thing which could have wings" conversely imply "It could be that
Walter's horse has wings"; for it might be that Walter's horse could only
have wings by not being Walter's horse.

I would deny, though, that the formula [Necessarily if some x has property P
then some x has property P] expresses a logical law, since P(x) could stand
for, let us say "x is a better logician than I am", and the statement "It is
necessary that if someone is a better logician than I am then someone is a
better logician than I am" is false because there need not have been any me.
-- A. N. Prior, "Time and Modality"