Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Intel i965 Gallium3D Driver In Standstill

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,904

    Default Intel i965 Gallium3D Driver In Standstill

    Phoronix: Intel i965 Gallium3D Driver In Standstill

    Back in December a new Intel Gallium3D driver was announced that supported the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge graphics processors under a completely new driver architecture than the current i965 "classic" Mesa DRI driver...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM1MDc

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,900

    Default

    I know that Gallium is kind of the baby of the FOSS world...but in this case who cares? The nice part about Gallium is that it decreases the workload on developers. And when you have a limited number of random contributors (ex: radeon and nouveau) that's a great boon. But this is Intel. Intel has what? 20 paid devs working on the Intel driver? Devs that KNOW the hardware and aren't reverse engineering it. Let them make their highly optimized, highly specific driver. They've got the knowledge to do it, they don't need Gallium's benefits because they don't have a shortage of knowledgeable developers.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    152

    Default

    Gallium is nice because you can create state trackers and extend it very easily

    Classic Mesa feels like a walled garden

    Btw, Michael is an idiot: https://github.com/olvaffe/mesa/commits/i965g-next

    Inactive my ass.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,149

    Default Not sad at all

    Sadly, it appears this new i965g driver also doesn't stand a chance.
    I'd like to see Intel support gallium, but it's kind of insane to be rooting for an unsupported i965 driver to go against the Intel backed official one.

    Without those 20 intel devs working on it, there's no way it would ever be able to catch up with the official one, and there's not much point to having 2 drivers for the same hardware if one is going to be far less than the other.

    The i915 driver is different, in that the "official" one from Intel is largely unsupported, at least with new work, and the gallium driver had some real support from Google in order to make it competitive.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    152

    Default

    Lol

    He pulled the article after I emailed him

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LLStarks View Post
    Lol

    He pulled the article after I emailed him
    Wasn't aware he was pushing to a different branch.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LLStarks View Post
    Gallium is nice because you can create state trackers and extend it very easily

    Classic Mesa feels like a walled garden

    Btw, Michael is an idiot: https://github.com/olvaffe/mesa/commits/i965g-next

    Inactive my ass.
    the google-, github-fu is strong with you

    nice catch !


    I'm curious how the new driver will stack up against the old one

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    I know that Gallium is kind of the baby of the FOSS world...but in this case who cares? The nice part about Gallium is that it decreases the workload on developers. And when you have a limited number of random contributors (ex: radeon and nouveau) that's a great boon. But this is Intel. Intel has what? 20 paid devs working on the Intel driver? Devs that KNOW the hardware and aren't reverse engineering it. Let them make their highly optimized, highly specific driver. They've got the knowledge to do it, they don't need Gallium's benefits because they don't have a shortage of knowledgeable developers.
    IIRC, they don't use Gallium because they don't want to rewrite their driver from scratch. They are also a little bit worried about the CPU overhead of Mesa+Gallium, but there is no proof the difference between a classic and Gallium driver would be measurable if they had both. Other than that, Gallium has only benefits.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LLStarks View Post
    He pulled the article after I emailed him
    And after you have publicly called him an idiot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Wasn't aware he was pushing to a different branch.
    It would serve your readers better if you didn't just silently drop the article. But instead add a statement why you retract it.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    ฿ 16LDJ6Hrd1oN3nCoFL7BypHSEYL84ca1JR
    Posts
    1,052

    Default

    Ok, the usual problem is first that the build system doesn't work with i965g alone, you also have to build swrast (gallium) for the build system to not choke on osmesa.

    Code:
    OpenGL vendor string: We Love Gallium3D
    OpenGL renderer string: Gallium 0.4 on Intel(R) Ivybridge Mobile
    OpenGL version string: 2.1 Mesa 9.2.0 (git-10004a0)
    OpenGL shading language version string: 1.30
    glxgears works without issues. The HUD is not yet merged into this branch it seems.

    http://get.webgl.org in chrome dev works, but 100.000 stars hangs the gpu.

    kwin seems to work fine, very performant even.
    Last edited by ChrisXY; 04-13-2013 at 08:38 AM.

Posting Permissions

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