Work Towards OpenGL 3.0 In Mesa, Glamor, PM

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Work Towards OpenGL 3.0 In Mesa, Glamor, PM

While the Intel Mesa DRI Linux graphics driver hit the milestone last week of hitting GLSL 1.30 compliance (for Sandy Bridge hardware) as needed per the OpenGL 3.0 specification, there's still a fair amount of other work to take care of before reaching full GL3 support. There's also some news to report with regard to UXA Glamor acceleration and Intel DRM power management...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTAxNjM

[Wubbbi]

I always hear: "Intel did ... Intel developer did ... new support for Intel ... Intel ... Intel ... Intel ..." ( the same in the git log ). What is about AMD/Nvidia? I know that AMD has got 1 or more ( I guess more ) developer special for Mesa-Dri but he is not going to commit as much as the Intel developer does. Why not? And what is about Nvidia? Are they so lanzy that they cant employ 1 or 2 developer for Mesa-dri? I mean its nice to see, that Intel GPU will get a (in relation) awesome OpenGL support but I think for real 3D gaming and programming AMD and Nvidia is more common. I only got a Netbook with an Intel Chipset-GPU, but this wont take any benefits of the current development.

I hope that AMD ( and more important NVIDIA!!! ) will get their hands on it now and not only commit a patch once in a week. ( When I compare ... I have a 40h week and when I only have 1 resault in a week, I will be fired!!! <.< )

Maybe a AMD dev could give some status updates and maybe tell us why it is taking such a long time and why Intel is so damn fast! o.O

P.s. I dont want to bother anyone. I like to see that developing is going on. But the AMD devs are no volenteers, they are employed. So in my opinion there are requierments that they may work a bit harder and more.

Greetings

Wubbbi

[Teho]

Are they so lanzy that they cant employ 1 or 2 developer for Mesa-dri?i

They don't have open source strategy nor do they support it in anyway. They have quite good propietary Linux driver but that's where it ends and if it isn't clear it doesn't use Mesa.

[bridgman]

Maybe a AMD dev could give some status updates and maybe tell us why it is taking such a long time and why Intel is so damn fast! o.O

P.s. I dont want to bother anyone. I like to see that developing is going on. But the AMD devs are no volenteers, they are employed. So in my opinion there are requierments that they may work a bit harder and more.

Most of the devs are working on initial support for hardware whose programming info hasn't been released yet, so you won't see the activity in public repositories yet. If you look back over the last few years you'll see a recurring pattern :

- why is everything happening so slowly ?
- why is everything happening so slowly ?
- I can't believe how fast things have progressed !!
- why is everything happening so slowly ?
- why is everything happening so slowly ?
- I can't believe how fast things have progressed !!
...

[przemoli]

Can anyone asque Intel devs what they plan to do next? After OpenGL 3.0 arives? Intel do not have OpenGL 3.1 hardware yet.

[pingufunkybeat]

Ivy Bridge is OpenGL 3.1, so I assume they'll work on that.

[elanthis]

Can anyone asque Intel devs what they plan to do next? After OpenGL 3.0 arives? Intel do not have OpenGL 3.1 hardware yet.

Intel has full Direct3D 10.1 hardware, with OpenGL 3.1 drivers already on Windows. That hardware should even be capable of GL 3.3, but likely Intel just doesn't care to update their drivers (don't blame them; barely anybody uses GL on Windows, even the "classicaly all OpenGL" big content apps like Max use D3D now, every Windows WebGL implementation is based on ANGLE which is a D3D translation layer for GLES, and the rare GL game like RAGE has gotten a ton of bad press because of how buggy and crash-prone it is thanks to the state of GL drivers). Ivy Bridge is slated to be D3D 11/OGL 4 capable.

[smitty3268]

Sandybridge = GL3.3
Ivybridge = GL4.x

Intel's windows drivers are famously awful, and don't provide the full feature set the hardware is capable of.

With Ivy coming out soon, there's still a long ways to go before the Intel guys can say they have caught up with the hardware.

[Qaridarium]

Can anyone asque Intel devs what they plan to do next? After OpenGL 3.0 arives? Intel do not have OpenGL 3.1 hardware yet.

all openGL3 hardware are directX10 hardware and openGL3.3 is the last openGL specification for directX10 hardware.

[bibi]

I'm happy about all this new features from Intel. I actually use an nvidia (which works great but if i can come back from the dark side...).

Anyway i remember having bought a radeon 4670 a long time ago (when i have begun to read phoronix) to support AMD and their opensource policy... but i never used this card (the opensource or catalyst driver was too buggy/uncomplete) so i had to buy my nvidia..., and i'm afraid to think that it's always the case.
I dont understand the choice of AMD to provide 2 drivers, and i dont understand why they provide opensource driver which is in a state... (3D, video, powersaving...) . It' for me (excuse me M. Bridgman) a waste of time : either you provide a good closed source driver, either you provide a good open source driver (i preferre this one).
I know you do the best you can with your actual manpower.
I hope one day i could buy and use an AMD card, but i dont think it will be soon.

It was the last will of a disapointed AMD fan guy.

Bibi