Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: The Status Of Gallium3D Drivers, State Trackers

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,578

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nhaehnle View Post
    Though even Intel with Larrabee admit that they need dedicated texture filtering in hardware, and a big part of the performance in AMD and NVidia GPUs comes from dedicated Z buffer optimizations.
    Wouldn't that pedantically be neither a CPU nor a GPU anymore but something altogether different? But yeah, probably would have to be a separate hardware driver to utilize those functionalities that go over what a CPU has.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    /dev/random
    Posts
    218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fiete View Post
    According to him graphics will soon be rendered 100% in software again on normal general purpose CPUs.
    I guess the upcoming Larrabee GPU follows this direction he describes.
    But how does Gallium3D fit into the picture? Does Gallium3D have a place in pure software rendering?
    IMO, I think GPU's will be merged with the CPU, making a new type of CPU that can handle huge amounts of streams simultaneously like the GPU's today. (Basically moving the GPU to the CPU die)

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    34

    Default

    What would be awesome is if the likes of NVidia and ATI would license the arm core and build a CPU with an integrated graphics pipeline and DDR3 memory controller.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    87

    Default Tegra?

    Quote Originally Posted by philcostin View Post
    What would be awesome is if the likes of NVidia and ATI would license the arm core and build a CPU with an integrated graphics pipeline and DDR3 memory controller.
    You mean like NVIDIA's Tegra platform?...

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ioannis View Post
    You mean like NVIDIA's Tegra platform?...
    /me goes to investigate!

    EDIT: Wow, yes.. that is exactly what I meant. Cool! Next, we need unix graphics workstations based on that. :P
    Last edited by philcostin; 09-13-2009 at 06:02 AM.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,072

    Default

    ARM workstations? They just don't have the oomph. AMD's Fusion and Intel's Arrendale would be better there, with AMD parts being better for graphic-intensive use as always.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    621

    Default

    Back on topic...

    There is still no hardware-accelerated Gallium3D. How long do you think it will take to make Gallium3D usable as a driver infrastructure? 3 years, I guess?

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eosie View Post
    Back on topic...

    There is still no hardware-accelerated Gallium3D. How long do you think it will take to make Gallium3D usable as a driver infrastructure? 3 years, I guess?
    partial implementations for Intel's 915/965 IGP, ATI R300 and the Nouveau project for Nvidia cards. I think the Intel one is usable, but not for mainstream, the others are in an early development stage.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,578

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eosie View Post
    There is still no hardware-accelerated Gallium3D. How long do you think it will take to make Gallium3D usable as a driver infrastructure? 3 years, I guess?
    On ATi card side they probably want the existing driver infra (classic Mesa with radeon-rewrite, KMS+ttm) to be stable before focus moves on Gallium3D. They just stop extending it beyond a certain point. (which has not yet been definitely decided) It's easier to test the KMS+ttm against a Mesa implementation whose core doesn't change every time you look the other direction, ya know? After that part is done, we should look forward to getting Gallium3D drivers at a nice pace...

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    621

    Default

    Now it makes sense to me. Thanks for the explanation.

Posting Permissions

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