Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Intel Ivy Bridge - Linux: GL 3.0, Windows: GL 4.0

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,826

    Default Intel Ivy Bridge - Linux: GL 3.0, Windows: GL 4.0

    Phoronix: Intel Ivy Bridge - Linux: GL 3.0, Windows: GL 4.0

    While the Intel Linux graphics developers have postponed the OpenGL 3.1 support until probably next year, the Intel Windows driver developers have now managed OpenGL 4.0 support, which compliments the OpenCL 1.1 support on Ivy Bridge -- another feature not found at this point in the Intel Linux GPU driver...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA5NzM

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    989

    Default

    I have yet to see anything of value requiring OpenGL 3.0 or later on Linux. OilRush seems to run fine on drivers advertising 2.1. And nothing released since runs on GL 3 or later.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    I have yet to see anything of value requiring OpenGL 3.0 or later on Linux. OilRush seems to run fine on drivers advertising 2.1. And nothing released since runs on GL 3 or later.
    The Oilrush developers claim that OpenGL 3.3 is required for their game.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    The Oilrush developers claim that OpenGL 3.3 is required for their game.
    Well, it's possible that they only require some small subset of GL 3.x, and that subset is supported by mesa even though it advertises "GL 2.1". In fact I think that's probably the reality. Mesa won't increment its actual GL version advertisement until it supports the _entire_ version it advertises, not just some of it. That way people don't file tons of bugs about unsupported extensions etc.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    I wonder why is OpenGL 4 lagging so much on Linux Intel driver. This is not even priority under windows, and yet they matched it to 4. Why such a lag? Why they cannot develop it as join effort? Whats the real problem under the hood?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,405

    Default

    Intel is almost certainly the largest Mesa contributor, so I'd say they are doing fine. It is unreasonable to expect them (or act snippy, as you seem to be doing) to bring up the entire stack (like cairo, X, wayland, pixman) to Windows levels on their own.
    I would like to see how well ivb performs when turning on sna, rc6.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,310

    Default

    I completely agree with crazycheese and liam.

    I would also like to point out that in some ways I think its kind of a good thing that open source drivers don't work with newer versions of openGL, because they're not ready yet. Regardless of demand, game developers like Blizzard might get discouraged to support an OS where the Nvidia proprietary drivers are really the only ones completely reliable and fully equipped, relatively speaking. Intel is 2nd best, and as this article points out, it is still notably behind. So I'm thinking that unless the open source driver devs for some reason decide to jump to future versions of opengl before they really optimize their code, not supporting future versions of opengl will help prevent people from using these drivers for games that they can't handle, even if newer versions of opengl were supported. Then, only the fully supported devices will be used.

    What I find weird is Linux is really the only OS that should care about opengl 3 and higher, yet it has the weakest support for it. Mac, AFAIK, doesn't have much support for oGL4 and Windows prefers DX.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    well intel "Linux: GL 3.0, Windows: GL 4.0" thats why i don't buy intel products!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,631

    Default

    I know that you only buy hardware with AMD logo on it. Don't know if AMD addiction is good. As TSMC produces the gpus for AMD and NVIDIA it does not matter which dedicated card you buy, nothing was produced in germany. Often cpus are cheaper from AMD, but only because they are slower. With every new Intel cpu generation the AMD prices have to go down. What AMD does is definitely really stupid, the fastest cpus they sell do not have got onchip vga, only the slow ones got a gpu. But as you certainly know that you won't get any fglrx driver updates for hd 42xx and that gfx core is used for am3 solutions and you do not get any video acceleration with radeon oss compared to intel oss, what is the better choice? Buying the slower FM1 cpus? Buy an addional AMD dedicated gpu which will be dropped from the binary driver while the cards are still sold? I don't think that AMD is the best choice with the one and only exception that the hardware is often cheaper. If that matters for you, then buy it. Opterons btw. are the worst choice for a gamer, too low speed/core.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    I know that you only buy hardware with AMD logo on it. Don't know if AMD addiction is good. As TSMC produces the gpus for AMD and NVIDIA it does not matter which dedicated card you buy, nothing was produced in germany. Often cpus are cheaper from AMD, but only because they are slower. With every new Intel cpu generation the AMD prices have to go down. What AMD does is definitely really stupid, the fastest cpus they sell do not have got onchip vga, only the slow ones got a gpu. But as you certainly know that you won't get any fglrx driver updates for hd 42xx and that gfx core is used for am3 solutions and you do not get any video acceleration with radeon oss compared to intel oss, what is the better choice? Buying the slower FM1 cpus? Buy an addional AMD dedicated gpu which will be dropped from the binary driver while the cards are still sold? I don't think that AMD is the best choice with the one and only exception that the hardware is often cheaper. If that matters for you, then buy it. Opterons btw. are the worst choice for a gamer, too low speed/core.
    Excuse me, what?

    What has AMD got to do with this?

    (I tried searching both the article and the discussion and the only mentions of AMD were on your post.)

    Edit: I didn't notice Qaridarium's post. My eyes must have somehow skipped it automatically after reading the poster's name.
    Last edited by M1kkko; 05-06-2012 at 03:32 PM.

Posting Permissions

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