Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: OpenGL 4.3, OpenGL ES 3.0 Specifications Unveiled

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Yes, but your implication seemed to be that the use of the word "Open" in the standard name meant that it should at least have an open/free implementation -- or maybe I got that wrong.
    No, you actually got it right. There absolutely should be an official open/free implementation of it. My comment was just there to point out that people had been talking about free software before 1998, there is no reason such a free implementation should have been off the table at the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowBane View Post
    You have that much need for a terribly preforming softpipe that has the sole goal of being a reference implementation? Honestly, a reference driver can't be made, because graphics cards are not uniform.
    If I got it right, Mesa is a generic implementation of OpenGL (Wikipedia). What I'm saying is that maybe the entity behind OpenGL should have had been doing something similar to Mesa from the beginning as a reference implementation...

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M1kkko View Post
    No, you actually got it right. There absolutely should be an official open/free implementation of it. My comment was just there to point out that people had been talking about free software before 1998, there is no reason such a free implementation should have been off the table at the time.



    If I got it right, Mesa is a generic implementation of OpenGL (Wikipedia). What I'm saying is that maybe the entity behind OpenGL should have had been doing something similar to Mesa from the beginning as a reference implementation...
    Mesa is more of a cross-platform framework. I'd say the swrast driver is about the closest thing to what a reference implementation of OpenGL would be.

    I wouldn't expect them to create an entire framework designed to run on multiple different GPUs when they don't even know what kind of hardware is going to be out there.

    That would certainly be an interesting project to have around, but i don't think it would really be very useful. Mostly as a way to test the Mesa implementation against the behaviour of the reference implementation, I suspect. Every now and then some code might get shared, but i suspect it would be very little with the different scopes of the projects.

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    BTW before you pick a specific proprietary implementation as your "reference", you might want to read up on strict vs relaxed implementations. There are some significant differences in the way that out-of-spec API calls are handled, each with pros and cons.
    I'll help a little here
    http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...uck-They-don-t

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Here's a (rather hastily written) review of OpenGL 4.3:

    http://www.g-truc.net/doc/OpenGL4.3review.pdf

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Sigh. And OpenGL ES 3.0 still lacks geometry shaders.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    somewhere at the edge of the Milky Way
    Posts
    98

    Question Geometry shaders are not a good fit for mobile hardware

    Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
    Sigh. And OpenGL ES 3.0 still lacks geometry shaders.
    Somewhere on these forums is a post explaining this. It says that mobile hardware has to be above all else power efficient and the impact of geometry shader processing circuitry on power consumption simply outweighs their usefulness.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    309

    Default

    Do r600/r700 have all the required hardware features for OpenGL ES 3.0? Except for ETC textures, I understand no desktop GPU has those.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ansla View Post
    Do r600/r700 have all the required hardware features for OpenGL ES 3.0? Except for ETC textures, I understand no desktop GPU has those.
    If ES is a subset of regular OpenGL i don't see a reason not to have the necessary features.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Support for new texture formats will be provided with a workaround (in software) on GPU's that don't have the hardware for ETC textures.

    Drivers can do a lot too you know

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ansla View Post
    Do r600/r700 have all the required hardware features for OpenGL ES 3.0?
    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    If ES is a subset of regular OpenGL i don't see a reason not to have the necessary features.
    OpenGL ES 3.0 is mostly based on OpenGL 3.3, but it lacks some 3.x features (notably including geomitry shaders), and does include some 4.x features (notably including ETC2/EAC/ASTC texture compression).

    So while OpenGL ES 3.0 is a subset of OpenGL 4.3, it is not a subset of OpenGL 3.3, which is all r600/r700 supports. That said, considering the limited number of 4.x features in ES 3.0, I'd say r600/r700 hw support is likely (except for the new texture compression formats), but I'm not an expert and can't say for sure.

Posting Permissions

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