Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Geometry Shaders For Mesa Not Yet Ready

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,133

    Default Geometry Shaders For Mesa Not Yet Ready

    Phoronix: Geometry Shaders For Mesa Not Yet Ready

    While there's been early code available for several months, Mesa support for OpenGL Geometry Shaders still isn't ready for merging into mainline Mesa...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTI4NzY

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    If only Intel were capable to deliver a graphically powerful CPU, preferably with ECC ram support, I would be sold...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    245

    Default

    Any thoughts on if we'll see full OpenGL 4.0 in mesa before there's an OpenGL 5.0?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prescience500 View Post
    Any thoughts on if we'll see full OpenGL 4.0 in mesa before there's an OpenGL 5.0?
    Well, that probably depends a lot on when GL 5.0 is going to get released. I haven't heard of any plans for it yet.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Realistically its still probably going to be a couple years before the full 4.x spec is implemented. Mesa is on a 6 month cycle and at the current pace it'll take at least 4 more cycles or more.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    357

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    Realistically its still probably going to be a couple years before the full 4.x spec is implemented. Mesa is on a 6 month cycle and at the current pace it'll take at least 4 more cycles or more.

    Intel went from "one GL version upgrade" every year to "one" every 6 months, and it seams that in the near future they will try for "two" every 6 months. So i believe they will be there sooner. Also they do experiments with Voxel-Raytracing scenarios and i don't believe that they will stay closed just because tomorrow's synthesizer will be new technology (like some others do). Any way performance is not a problem, as 40core_GT3 with 256bit_FMAC per core is good. The problem is that they use a lot of software rasterizing even to the GPU that seams more like simple CPU and not like ASIC (except TMUs). So they support less GL calls and they crushing Wine support. Then, AMD for other reasons it is not in a better situation.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    If only Intel were capable to deliver a graphically powerful CPU, preferably with ECC ram support, I would be sold...
    You see, all powerful GPUs have wide dedicated memory bus (128 bits for mid-range, 256-384 bits for hi-end) and fast GDDR5 RAM on this bus. Do you really expect that GPU on relatively slow DDR3 bus (DDR3 is only used on slowest and cheapest graphic cards, better cards come with GDDR5 RAM) which is also shared with CPU itself could show really decent performance?

    Keep on dreaming. However it's not like if you can emulate fast dedicated bus and GDDR5 in software :P.

Posting Permissions

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