Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: OpenGL 3.1 Not Likely In Mesa Until 2013

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,615

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darkbasic View Post
    They are already working on Haswell...
    our only hope for OpenGL4 + is Intel developing their own hi end GPUS (comparable to nVidia and AMD)

    and then again they don't use G3D

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
    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.
    When you will put Linux kernel to that list the situation is much different. Linux growth rate exceeded Windows NT in 1999. Linux had many features introduced before Windows. It seems Windows can only match in things like Mesa which aren't so important, because we have proprietary graphic drivers.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    (edit) ubs,,, were is the comparison to the r600 driver?
    oh I was lzy and left it as an exercise for the reader, though memory seems to point at around 7100/7600 or something like that.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by airlied View Post
    oh I was lzy and left it as an exercise for the reader, though memory seems to point at around 7100/7600 or something like that.
    well yes i found it: http://people.freedesktop.org/~airlied/piglit/r600/

    r600= 7466/7795 =95,77%

    best catalyst run: 6393/8144 = 78,49%

    the catalyst run do have more tests ?

    well yes the opensource driver beat the catalyst in accuracy.

    but why workstation users accept this mess ?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,074

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    the catalyst run do have more tests ?
    Piglit automatically skips tests that drivers report they don't support - so having GL 4.2 support and more extensions than the OSS drivers mean that it can run more tests.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darkbasic View Post
    Support in mesa means drivers will support it in ~6months.
    And means this would take time that can be useful to other things.

    Quote Originally Posted by darkbasic View Post
    Done (Intel)
    Yes but r600g/nouveau need improvements in power management.

    Quote Originally Posted by darkbasic View Post
    WIP (Intel)
    Well, Sandy/Ivy Bridge performance on Linux is about 30-50% of SB/IB on Windows... And those GPUs aren't good for gaming on Windows.

    Quote Originally Posted by darkbasic View Post
    WIP
    Yes and I think OCL is more interesting than OGL 3.2/4.x.

    Quote Originally Posted by darkbasic View Post
    Done (Intel)
    As far as I know only with dedicated hardware. Gallium3D offers extensible (but less efficient) hw decoding.

    Quote Originally Posted by darkbasic View Post
    But we need 3.2
    I think we don't need it right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by darkbasic View Post
    They are already working on Haswell...
    AFAIK Intel has no plan to make high end GPUs so even if Haswell would support OGL 4.x it wouldn't be so useful.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,074

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nedanfor View Post
    AFAIK Intel has no plan to make high end GPUs so even if Haswell would support OGL 4.x it wouldn't be so useful.
    Ivy Bridge can already support the full GL 4 API, the fact that they don't is 100% based on their driver teams not finishing the software to do so. The hardware is already there.

    Whether the hardware is fast enough to really support applications that would try to use that support is a different matter - perhaps Haswell will be there.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    25

    Default My theory

    I believe there is a lot of optimized third party algorithtms/code that are licensed for closed source graphic stacks and this is why those perform better. This is probably also a reason why all those mobile drivers are closed - it's simply not possible to release that code without violating the NDA, and maybe they even don't get the source itself, just the precompiled library or obfuscated IR that is compiled for the target platform. Probably exception is Nvidia and ATI who developed their stacks earlier than the competition, but then they have a lot to hide. Protecting their driver code means protecting their most valuable IP (mean easiest to copy), and probably saves them from occassional patent lawsuit.

    Mesa OTOH, suffers also from lack of manpower. It doesn't help that a lot of effort is split between the classic Intel and Gallium for AMD/Nouveau. I guess Intel doesn't want to spend time rewriting and reoptimizing all their code (if they don't foresee immediate gain) and also they'd be doing free work for the competition, since gallium tries to share code between the drivers. Third, it might not even be optimal frasmework for their driver, whereas Intel devs have free hands with the classic driver to tune it to their needs and hardware.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smorovic View Post
    I believe there is a lot of optimized third party algorithtms/code that are licensed for closed source graphic stacks and this is why those perform better. This is probably also a reason why all those mobile drivers are closed - it's simply not possible to release that code without violating the NDA, and maybe they even don't get the source itself, just the precompiled library or obfuscated IR that is compiled for the target platform. Probably exception is Nvidia and ATI who developed their stacks earlier than the competition, but then they have a lot to hide. Protecting their driver code means protecting their most valuable IP (mean easiest to copy), and probably saves them from occassional patent lawsuit.

    Mesa OTOH, suffers also from lack of manpower. It doesn't help that a lot of effort is split between the classic Intel and Gallium for AMD/Nouveau. I guess Intel doesn't want to spend time rewriting and reoptimizing all their code (if they don't foresee immediate gain) and also they'd be doing free work for the competition, since gallium tries to share code between the drivers. Third, it might not even be optimal frasmework for their driver, whereas Intel devs have free hands with the classic driver to tune it to their needs and hardware.
    I don't get why people think there is some secret sauce in the proprietary code, there isn't. It's just optimization over and over and over. It's matter of number of people couple dozen in open source for all GPU (AMD, Intel, NVidia) while for closed driver it's several hundred for each GPU. No big secret, just lot of man time spent optimizing each possible use case and sometime doing specific codepath for specific application.

  10. #30

    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.

Posting Permissions

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