4 ms·

Which one of these companies does at better job with free/libre software? I've always had a soft spot for AMD because it's the underdog, but I want to make sure

Which one of these companies does at better job with free/libre software? I've always had a soft spot for AMD because it's the underdog, but I want to make sure that they are free, too.

Senderman 8y ago
If the answer turned out to be Intel, would you overlook the misleading 28-core demo the article discusses?
- bayindirh 8y ago
  Intel provides a lot of patches for Linux Kernel, for their hardware, performance counters, and their graphics drivers are open source under mainline. I'm not mentioning their wired Ethernet and other various drivers. Being one of the top contributors in Linux/OSS/FLOSS doesn't allow them to come clean from their 28-core, inadvertently but conveniently miscommunicated demo.
- rocky1138 8y ago
  Yeah, though it's not the best thing to have on the resume. That's for sure.
flafla2 8y ago
GPUOpen [1] is AMD's branded Open Source / Open protocol initiative. [1] https://gpuopen.com/ https://gpuopen.com/
zaarn 8y ago
AMD has been doing a lot of hardwork to get their stuff into mainline (AMDGPU as a recent example) and they opensource a lot of their GPU stuff on github. On the CPU side, AMD has patched Linux way before Ryzen was available in shops and has been contributing various patches afterwards. I'd say they are working to get a decent track record for their Ryzen and Vega lineups.
robin_reala 8y ago
Are you talking about contributions to OSS in general, or specifically around processors?
- rocky1138 8y ago
  In general, as a company.
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    Both AMD and Intel seem highly supportive of OSS. Intel's iGPUs had the best Linux drivers for the longest time, while AMD just managed to mainline their GPU drivers into the 4.15 kernel. I think AMD is "worse" at it but for understandable reasons. They're a smaller company, so it takes a bit longer for AMD to release low-level manuals. (Ex: still waiting on those Zen architecture instruction timings AMD!!). Even then, AMD releases "draft" manuals which allow the OSS world to move. So the important stuff is still out there, even as AMD is a bit slow on the documentation front. Basically, Intel is a bigger company and handles the details a bit better than AMD. But both are highly supportive of OSS in great degrees.
rcxdude 8y ago
They're about the same. Both contribute to linux. Intel's GPU drivers are more complete and open, but their GPUs are not in the same league as AMDs. AMD has open and closed source versions of their driver and are moving more towards the open version (which is already very good). Both companies have closed-source initial boot and AMT-like tech with potential backdoors built into their CPUs.

Which one of these companies does at better job with free/libre software? I've always had a soft spot for AMD because it's the underdog, but I want to make sure that they are free, too.

Senderman 8y ago

If the answer turned out to be Intel, would you overlook the misleading 28-core demo the article discusses?

bayindirh 8y ago
Intel provides a lot of patches for Linux Kernel, for their hardware, performance counters, and their graphics drivers are open source under mainline. I'm not mentioning their wired Ethernet and other various drivers. Being one of the top contributors in Linux/OSS/FLOSS doesn't allow them to come clean from their 28-core, inadvertently but conveniently miscommunicated demo.
rocky1138 8y ago
Yeah, though it's not the best thing to have on the resume. That's for sure.

flafla2 8y ago

GPUOpen [1] is AMD's branded Open Source / Open protocol initiative. [1] https://gpuopen.com/ https://gpuopen.com/

zaarn 8y ago

AMD has been doing a lot of hardwork to get their stuff into mainline (AMDGPU as a recent example) and they opensource a lot of their GPU stuff on github. On the CPU side, AMD has patched Linux way before Ryzen was available in shops and has been contributing various patches afterwards. I'd say they are working to get a decent track record for their Ryzen and Vega lineups.

robin_reala 8y ago

Are you talking about contributions to OSS in general, or specifically around processors?

rocky1138 8y ago
In general, as a company.
- dragontamer 8y ago
  Both AMD and Intel seem highly supportive of OSS. Intel's iGPUs had the best Linux drivers for the longest time, while AMD just managed to mainline their GPU drivers into the 4.15 kernel. I think AMD is "worse" at it but for understandable reasons. They're a smaller company, so it takes a bit longer for AMD to release low-level manuals. (Ex: still waiting on those Zen architecture instruction timings AMD!!). Even then, AMD releases "draft" manuals which allow the OSS world to move. So the important stuff is still out there, even as AMD is a bit slow on the documentation front. Basically, Intel is a bigger company and handles the details a bit better than AMD. But both are highly supportive of OSS in great degrees.

rcxdude 8y ago

They're about the same. Both contribute to linux. Intel's GPU drivers are more complete and open, but their GPUs are not in the same league as AMDs. AMD has open and closed source versions of their driver and are moving more towards the open version (which is already very good). Both companies have closed-source initial boot and AMT-like tech with potential backdoors built into their CPUs.