Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: A Fourth Release Candidate For Mesa 7.5

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    Intel's IGPs are more popular than Nvidia's IGPs and discrete solutions put together.
    I know that, but I believe he is still talking about discreet solutions alone. Lets face it, nobody in their right mind tries to do 3d intense graphics on even the fastest IGP solution.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    I know that, but I believe he is still talking about discreet solutions alone. Lets face it, nobody in their right mind tries to do 3d intense graphics on even the fastest IGP solution.
    Call me crazy, but there are IGP Radeon chipsets with unified shaders, which are definitely able to compete with their discrete cousins. Also, Poulsbo and PowerVR accelerators (based on Imagination SGX) are fairly beefy for their size and power consumption.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    I know that, but I believe he is still talking about discreet solutions alone. Lets face it, nobody in their right mind tries to do 3d intense graphics on even the fastest IGP solution.
    Recent IGPs are more potent than people give them credit. I've used a Quadro NVS 135M (equivalent to an 8400M with shared memory) to develop a beefy VR application: displacement mapping, SSAO, shadow maps, ... Result? 30fps @800x600 (no SSAO) or 30fps @640x480 (with SSAO), using 2x FSAA. This scales to ~72fps @1600x1200 on a 4850 (4x FSAA & stereo rendering).
    Last edited by BlackStar; 06-27-2009 at 02:56 PM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    Result? 30fps @800x600 (no SSAO) or 30fps @640x480 (with SSAO). .
    640 and 800 resolutions hardly qualify as beefy.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    640 and 800 resolutions hardly qualify as beefy.
    Do you have *any* idea what displacement mapping and SSAO stand for?

    To put things into perspective, the NVS 135 is an IGP that is advertized as 2d only and comes *without* any memory. Its results fall somewhere between a discrete 7600 and 7800 GPU and have better image quality to boot.

    Make no mistake, recent IGPs from nvidia and esp. ati pack quite a bit of horsepower.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    Do you have *any* idea what displacement mapping and SSAO stand for?

    To put things into perspective, the NVS 135 is an IGP that is advertized as 2d only and comes *without* any memory. Its results fall somewhere between a discrete 7600 and 7800 GPU and have better image quality to boot.

    Make no mistake, recent IGPs from nvidia and esp. ati pack quite a bit of horsepower.
    Yes I do know what displacement mapping and SSAO are. Lets put it into perspective. Your "performance equivalents" were budget discrete parts over 3 years ago and are old and slow compared to the discreet parts nowdays. If you want to run something like old doom 3 your gonna have a hard time even hitting playable framerates @ 1024.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Yes I do know what displacement mapping and SSAO are. Lets put it into perspective. Your "performance equivalents" were budget discrete parts over 3 years ago and are old and slow compared to the discreet parts nowdays. If you want to run something like old doom 3 your gonna have a hard time even hitting playable framerates @ 1024.
    If you actually knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be comparing to Doom 3, which has neither.

    Obviously, IGPs will be slower than discrete GPUs or, in the best case, equivalent to low-end offerings of the current generation. This doesn't mean they are useless for 3d: 7600s and 7800s still perform acceptably in many games today. Which is important, since IGPs take a large (the largest?) slice of GPU sales.

    The point here is that a dead cheap IGP can match the performance of a mid-range GPU from the previous generation, improve on its image quality *and* offer more features (video decoding, OpenCL). Obviously, you won't use an IGP if you are a gamer or otherwise care about 3d performance, but guess what? Most people aren't gamers.

    Bottom line: a good IGP is the perfect match for an HTPC and the occasional game. Low power consumption? Check. Video decoding? Check. Acceptable performance? Check.

    Edit: WTH, thought this was the HTPC thread! This is way off-topic for the Mesa3d discussion, apologies.
    Last edited by BlackStar; 06-27-2009 at 04:03 PM.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    If you actually knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be comparing to Doom 3, which has neither.
    I never said doom had either. I was using it as a example of how inadequate igp solutions are for anything but basic desktop use or running old apps. They simply do not have the needed horsepower for present 3d graphics standards. Lets face it nobody sane would even think of trying to run Crysis on any IGP.

    Obviously, IGPs will be slower than discrete GPUs or, in the best case, equivalent to low-end offerings of the current generation. This doesn't mean they are useless for 3d: 7600s and 7800s still perform acceptably in many games today.
    When the resolution is dropped drastically and eyecandy at the bare minimum.

    The point here is that a dead cheap IGP can match the performance of a mid-range GPU from the previous generation, improve on its image quality *and* offer more features (video decoding, OpenCL). Obviously, you won't use an IGP if you are a gamer or otherwise care about 3d performance, but guess what? Most people aren't gamers.
    Actually your IGP that you used for an example would be equivelent (a hair less because of memory) to the bottom feeder, the 8400 GPU

    Bottom line: a good IGP is the perfect match for an HTPC and the occasional game. Low power consumption? Check. Video decoding? Check. Acceptable performance? Check.
    The only one up to the task is a nvidia IGP with the blobs. In FOSS land there still isn't a solution that does not require brute force processing by the CPU on HD content. Bye bye power consumption.

    Edit: WTH, thought this was the HTPC thread! This is way off-topic for the Mesa3d discussion, apologies.
    And as which Mesa3D performance is ~ 50-60 percent of what propriatary GL stack is able do. Which BTW is what your comparing in your examples. Best 3d performance is experienced with blobs, not mesa3d.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    And as which Mesa3D performance is ~ 50-60 percent of what propriatary GL stack is able do. Which BTW is what your comparing in your examples. Best 3d performance is experienced with blobs, not mesa3d.
    Patches welcome.

    ~ C.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    24

    Default

    What are the Mesa developers doing there? There is no problem if they take the time they need for developing. But announcing something similar to "it will be out in three days" and after three months there is still nothing is harming the project.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •