Results 1 to 10 of 40

Thread: OpenGL 3.1 Not Likely In Mesa Until 2013

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,657

    Default OpenGL 3.1 Not Likely In Mesa Until 2013

    Phoronix: OpenGL 3.1 Not Likely In Mesa Until 2013

    The release plans for Mesa 8.1 and Mesa 8.2 have been proposed. Unfortunately if you were hoping to see OpenGL 3.1 compliance in this open-source graphics driver library this summer, it looks like that won't come until 2013 and support for newer OpenGL specifications are even further out...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA5Njc

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    44

    Unhappy

    What a pity!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1

    Default Not as bad as it looks

    It's true Mesa is not at the same level as the OpenGL standard. However, if you look at the state, many features for OpenGL 3.X are already done. Since they are incremental updates, they should be easier to achieve than going to OpenGL 4.X. Even some 4.X features are already done.

    The real question is : is there so many applications using OpenGL 4.X out there not able to use 3.X?

    It is important to keep the pace, but it's also important to improve performances. That's what I'm the most worried about.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    67

    Default Yawn.

    That's rather pessimistic, I'd expected GL3.1,2,3 to come rather quickly now, and my geometry and tessellation shader support in gallium/nvc0's been sitting there bored for half a year already ... guess everyone's busy fixing bugs.
    I should be, too; plenty of bugs to squash. And optimizations to be done. No time to work on core mesa.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    25

    Default

    I can't understand it. Mesa has so great support from Intel, Red Hat and others big giants of IT, and they couldn't implement 3 years old specs, where nVidia and AMD could do it in so short time. What is the main reason? No so much ppl or money for work?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    San Bernardino, CA
    Posts
    232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olbi View Post
    I can't understand it. Mesa has so great support from Intel, Red Hat and others big giants of IT, and they couldn't implement 3 years old specs, where nVidia and AMD could do it in so short time. What is the main reason? No so much ppl or money for work?
    Good Question. Some of the big vendors (AMD or Intel, are you listening?) should help out in this area. It would buy a lot of community goodwill.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olbi View Post
    I can't understand it. Mesa has so great support from Intel, Red Hat and others big giants of IT, and they couldn't implement 3 years old specs, where nVidia and AMD could do it in so short time. What is the main reason? No so much ppl or money for work?
    FOSS projects do not have a lot of developers. The idea that there are millions of people willing to contribute to FOSS may be true in the broadest sense, but it's certainly not true when you narrow things down to the actually important, useful, and/or relevant FOSS projects.

    If you add up all of the people actively working on Mesa, GNOME, the desktop-related bits of the kernel, X11/Wayland, glibc and the rest of the core GNU system, and so on, you will still not have as many people as Microsoft has test engineers. The last goofy little 6-month 2D game project I worked on had a larger team than all of Mesa has.

    Companies that actually make large profits can hire tons of $120k+/year developers. FOSS gets the scraps; a handful of paid engineers that the low-profit FOSS companies can afford, a number of hobbyists working part-time after work, and a shitload of whiny self-entitled users who bitch and moan constantly about a free OS while contributing absolutely nothing.

    Developers with the necessary many years of experience and who can work 40+ hours/week do not often pop out of nowhere and start writing code for FOSS projects instead of working full-time at a proprietary software house. Somebody somewhere needs to be tossing them six-figures plus benefits every year. The most well-off FOSS company may be Red Hat -- they hit $1B yearly revenue (note: that's not profit) last year, or an average of $250M per quarter. AMD has a quarterly revenue of around $1.5B while Intel gets around $2.7B per quarter. Google managed $10B last quarter. Microsoft, on the other hand, pulls in almost $20B in quarterly revenue while Apple pulled in just shy of $40B last quarter. Needless to say, there's a shitload more highly experienced and talented developers at the big proprietary companies than there are at the little FOSS shops.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olbi View Post
    I can't understand it. Mesa has so great support from Intel, Red Hat and others big giants of IT, and they couldn't implement 3 years old specs, where nVidia and AMD could do it in so short time. What is the main reason? No so much ppl or money for work?
    Allot of the problem is the fact that the hardware itself lagged years behind the spec, take a look, Intel GPUs didn't even support OpenGL3 till the Sandy Bridge era: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...ocessing_units

    The new HD Graphics 2500 and HD Graphics 4000 GPUs can now handle OpenGL4, but there is no reason to implement it on them as they are far too slow to handle what most games are doing these days

    Intel's team seems to be one of the major driving forces behind MESA's OpenGL code as AMD's team is too small devote the manpower to add to the spec seeing as they have such a large back catalog of GPU hardware to get working on the existing MESA code before they can even think about adding advanced features to the OpenGL stack. You've gotta get the hardware running in the first place before you can make it stable, fast and add features else it becomes a half assed monstrosity.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olbi View Post
    I can't understand it. Mesa has so great support from Intel, Red Hat and others big giants of IT, and they couldn't implement 3 years old specs, where nVidia and AMD could do it in so short time. What is the main reason? No so much ppl or money for work?
    Hint - Nvidia and AMD (or at least, the part that used to be ATI) are specialists in creating graphics cards and drivers. It's how they make money.

Posting Permissions

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