Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Intel Brings OpenGL 2.0/2.1 To Classic i915 Mesa Driver

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,548

    Default Intel Brings OpenGL 2.0/2.1 To Classic i915 Mesa Driver

    Phoronix: Intel Brings OpenGL 2.0/2.1 To Classic i915 Mesa Driver

    While there's been talk recently of defaulting the Intel i914/i945 hardware support to using Gallium3D rather than the longstanding classic i915 Mesa DRI driver, some new features were just introduced into the i915 classic world...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM2MTA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    7

    Default Qt 5!

    Great news, that means I will be able to use Qt 5 on my dated Stylistic Tablet!

  3. #3

    Default Intel needs to get over its aversion to Gallium

    This is the one and only thing that bothers me about Intel's OSS strategy. The move is clearly toward Gallium.(every other manufacturer, I mean) But Intel has it's drivers stuck in the mud of "classic".

    It's one thing if they're carrying the huge brunt of the load for their own drivers, great. Then that's up to them. If you don't want to port your over to gallium, then don't. I respect that you're doing the huge work on the new drivers, and you do it as you want. But the i915 gallium driver is eclipsing the old classic driver.

    Just let it die! Put your patches in the gallium driver instead! What's wrong with that? Normally, those who want to try to get the gallium driver up and running are chasing after the classic, but in this instance, it's Intel who's re-inventing the wheel. The gallium driver already had these.

    I just don't get it. Why not say "If the gallium drivers start coming close, then let's just support that one instead. That's where the heavy lifting is taking place now. We see the shift, we understand."

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by halfmanhalfamazing View Post
    I just don't get it.
    Seriously not trolling here, but I think this is the most important part of your post. Gallium isn't some silver bullet. It actually is a bad fit for i915 since Gallium doesn't have any ability to fallback to software on fragment shaders (hence the dummy fragment shaders when something bad happens). i915 has some severe fragment shader limitations (three texture indirections, very small number of instructions, etc.) so this is kind of a bad fit.

    As far as eclipsing... I don't know what you're seeing to support that. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag..._default&num=1 shows that i915g is meaningfully faster in only a single benchmark, and *much* slower in most others. Eric's piglit comparison shows that i915g is much less conformant than i915c: http://people.freedesktop.org/~anhol...g/changes.html . Extra extensions supported by i915g like ARB_draw_instanced are just because it does all its vertex shaders in software. Kind of uncompelling.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    776

    Default

    Improving i915 is like improving IE6, a waste of time and a reason for someone to use dusty rusty hw.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    Improving i915 is like improving IE6, a waste of time and a reason for someone to use dusty rusty hw.
    I love the "if I don't use it it's useless crowd". Why don't you get back to your haswell and let me be satisfied with the hardware that I have.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattst88 View Post
    Gallium isn't some silver bullet. It actually is a bad fit for i915 since Gallium doesn't have any ability to fallback to software on fragment shaders (hence the dummy fragment shaders when something bad happens).
    That's a good answer. In the context of i915, there's a good solid reason based on the hardware capabilities.

    But here's what I wonder about:

    Some day there may come a gallium driver that could very well eclipse Intel's classic offerings on something that would be a good fit for gallium. I mean truely, and in ways that would come with links to pages like the ones you presented here.

    I have this suspicion that Intel just wouldn't allow it to become the standard. Call it a gut instinct, perhaps its wrong, but there it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattst88 View Post
    As far as eclipsing... I don't know what you're seeing to support that.
    I was probably too overly aggressive with the use of that word. I meant it only on the surface, because the "g" driver had OGL2.1, while classic only just now gained the feature. You clearly have a greater grasp of this, I'm glad your post was the first in reply.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SuperUserLand
    Posts
    536

    Default

    benchmarks have shown, time and time again, that the classic intel driver is BETTER than gallium.

    every 2d benchmark, even most 3d say the same


    why switch to something that is slower instead of asking intel to provide more support?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    14

    Default Tried on intel gen3. Breaks Unity destkop badly.

    Tried on an eeepc with intel gen3 graphics.

    Indeed, I see the opengl 2.1 advertised as well as the shading language level 1.2.
    But the issue is that this change breaks the Unity desktop to the point of making it unusable.
    Try to log-out to realize why, or to use the "search your computer" function.

    I believe that the issue is that now unity thinks that it can rely on some hardware features, that conversely are so painfully slow that make everything hang whenever they are invoked. As a matter of fact, whenever you see unity hanging, if you give enough time to it you will see that it is actually trying to play a fading or a translucency effect.

    Any way to force the graphics driver to advertise opengl 1.4 only as it was before?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    ฿ 16LDJ6Hrd1oN3nCoFL7BypHSEYL84ca1JR
    Posts
    1,039

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by callegar View Post
    Any way to force the graphics driver to advertise opengl 1.4 only as it was before?
    Code:
    $ glxinfo | grep OpenGL
    OpenGL vendor string: Intel Open Source Technology Center
    OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI Intel(R) Ivybridge Mobile 
    OpenGL core profile version string: 3.1 (Core Profile) Mesa 9.2.0 (git-5ba4c2e)
    OpenGL core profile shading language version string: 1.40
    OpenGL core profile context flags: (none)
    OpenGL core profile extensions:
    OpenGL version string: 3.0 Mesa 9.2.0 (git-5ba4c2e)
    OpenGL shading language version string: 1.30
    OpenGL context flags: (none)
    OpenGL extensions:
    $ MESA_GL_VERSION_OVERRIDE=1.4 glxinfo | grep OpenGL
    OpenGL vendor string: Intel Open Source Technology Center
    OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI Intel(R) Ivybridge Mobile 
    OpenGL core profile version string: 1.4 Mesa 9.2.0 (git-5ba4c2e)
    OpenGL core profile extensions:
    OpenGL version string: 1.4 Mesa 9.2.0 (git-5ba4c2e)
    OpenGL extensions:
    $
    http://www.mesa3d.org/envvars.html

Posting Permissions

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