Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: ATI R300-R500 Gallium3D Driver Is "Mostly" Done

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,913

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eosie View Post
    However, there is a little problem. As far as I know, r3xx-r5xx does not fully support non-power-of-two textures (e.g. the repeat wrap mode and mipmapping) and it is the prerequisite for GL2.0. If r300g gets GL2.x, this will imply falling back to software rasterizer in some situations, as was done in the proprietary drivers, am I right? Or will developers stick to GL1.5 + GLSL? I guess violating the GL spec in order to get GL2.x is out of the question, but that would be a pleasant solution in practice because people could use a newer GL API than what they have now.
    Isn't that the whole point of the "Softpipe pass-through" stuff that Michael said was marked done? Performance of apps that require that would be very bad but developers would just have to realize that can't be used on those cards, as I'm sure they already do. And the drivers would fully support GL2 - there's no requirement for doing it at any certain speed.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Good news for ATI owners then.
    I have no clue what Gallium3D is (Better check Wikipedia ), but i like improvements.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    in front of my box :p
    Posts
    735

    Default

    Bwahaha, it's not the 1st time I regret a little to have only these modern R600 based chips. When I see all the goodness happening on R100-500 first. I guess I'll have to be patient a few more months.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Isn't that the whole point of the "Softpipe pass-through" stuff that Michael said was marked done? Performance of apps that require that would be very bad but developers would just have to realize that can't be used on those cards, as I'm sure they already do. And the drivers would fully support GL2 - there's no requirement for doing it at any certain speed.
    The history tells us not to believe Michael on these things. I highly doubt it's that easy to switch hardware/software rasterizer in real-time since a GPU must share the same data with a CPU, which cannot be done without endlessly moving data around. I'd like someone informed to clear that up.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    756

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eosie View Post
    The history tells us not to believe Michael on these things.
    A good way to deal with phoronix news is to click on every link that doesn't lead back to phoronix and read them. Most of the time, the news contain no more than a short summary of the linked article, and sometimes Michael rushes the news and gets it wrong.

    Now I'm not expecting him to be fault-free or an expert in anything he's writing news about. In fact I enjoy the aggregate news, if only to click on the links. I just wish there was a way to prevent the ensuing forum-drama every time something's off

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany/NRW
    Posts
    510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eosie View Post
    However, there is a little problem. As far as I know, r3xx-r5xx does not fully support non-power-of-two textures (e.g. the repeat wrap mode and mipmapping) and it is the prerequisite for GL2.0.
    Well, ATi Catalyst is able to pull it off somehow, so I guess it's actually is not that a big problem.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,913

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhick View Post
    Well, ATi Catalyst is able to pull it off somehow, so I guess it's actually is not that a big problem.
    Couldn't the drivers just treat any non power of 2 texture as the next power of 2 size larger? It's not a great situation to have a 600px texture treated as a 1024 pixel one, but that seems like a relatively simple solution.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Israel, Tel-Avil
    Posts
    68

    Default Gallum3D i965 driver

    And in meanwhile, gallium3d i965 driver was removed....

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rohcQaH View Post
    A good way to deal with phoronix news is to click on every link that doesn't lead back to phoronix and read them. Most of the time, the news contain no more than a short summary of the linked article, and sometimes Michael rushes the news and gets it wrong.

    Now I'm not expecting him to be fault-free or an expert in anything he's writing news about. In fact I enjoy the aggregate news, if only to click on the links. I just wish there was a way to prevent the ensuing forum-drama every time something's off
    Seriously. It's gotten to the point where I went and used userCSS to highlight the offsite links in articles because finding the actual content was so hard.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iznogood View Post
    Also i want to ask why there is no gallium on r100 chips?
    I believe Gallium pretty much requires modern hardware. It's designed around how all modern cards work (programmable pipelines) instead of the fixed function pipelines of older graphics hardware.

    The hardware types are so different there's really no way to come up with a sane driver architecture for both.

Posting Permissions

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