Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: Modern Intel Gallium3D Driver Still Being Toyed With

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,361

    Default Modern Intel Gallium3D Driver Still Being Toyed With

    Phoronix: Modern Intel Gallium3D Driver Still Being Toyed With

    While it's not the default Linux graphics driver for Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge hardware, the "ilo" independently-developed Gallium3D driver for modern Intel graphics hardware continues to be developed...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM3NDg

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,994

    Default

    How nice to have a driver named "happiness" or "joy". Though that does put up some high expectations :P

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Where is the comments about missing features and poor performance and the insistence that only the classic driver be used?

    Oh never mind I get it. Bias only works one way.

    And how come We have never seen an Intel APU vs AMD APU comparison? Somehow I doubt that will ever happen on this site. Oh sure there have been some that included benchmarks of both, but not t a single one of them included graphics benches. Which is arguably the most important part of an APU. Why the hell else would you buy an APU?

    Either way. I don't care if you take a negative bias towards everything or if you take a positive bias towards everything. Just pick a damn side and be fair to that side.

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...10_5800k&num=1
    Review of the 5800k No Intel benches, but includes graphics.

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...a8_3870k&num=3
    Review of the 3870k Intel Benches, but no graphics.

    If that isnt completely obvious. I mean come on. This is ridiculous.
    Last edited by duby229; 05-18-2013 at 11:50 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    Where is the comments about missing features and poor performance and the insistence that only the classic driver be used?

    Oh never mind I get it. Bias only works one way.

    And how come We have never seen an Intel APU vs AMD APU comparison? Somehow I doubt that will ever happen on this site. Oh sure there have been some that included benchmarks of both, but not t a single one of them included graphics benches. Which is arguably the most important part of an APU. Why the hell else would you buy an APU?

    Either way. I don't care if you take a negative bias towards everything or if you take a positive bias towards everything. Just pick a damn side and be fair to that side.

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...10_5800k&num=1
    Review of the 5800k No Intel benches, but includes graphics.

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...a8_3870k&num=3
    Review of the 3870k Intel Benches, but no graphics.

    If that isnt completely obvious. I mean come on. This is ridiculous.



    There are benchmarks that show that Intel HD4000 is as fast as an Radeon 6500-600 Apu with 500Gflops and Catalyst. Any way we have not a reason to test a product (Catalyst) that steal to any Benchmark, reducing precision. I just don't understand how from this: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/gra...k_5.html#sect3 that Unigine shows the truth (gtx580=70% more Flops than HD6970, the same is with HD7000-3.8Tflops vs 6.4Tflops of a GTX680), now are equal.

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

    Default

    Those are high end discrete cards and not APUs. Needless to say Intel doesn't make high end discrete cards.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    221

    Default ???

    what s point for this drivers? someone explain?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    To unify all the oss drivers onto the gallium3d stack.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrecorreia View Post
    what s point for this drivers? someone explain?
    It's just a toy.

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    To unify all the oss drivers onto the gallium3d stack.
    No, it's a toy, as acknowledged by its author.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,036

    Default i915g is supposedly faster now

    Separately, for those curious about the recent prospects of the older i915 Gallium3D driver possibly becoming the default over Intel's i915 classic driver for supporting up through i945 IGPs, there isn't any new information.
    Well, there was actually a few commits by that google developer which supposedly increased performance of the i915g driver by like 30+%.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Intel ended up bringing OpenGL 2.1 to classic i915 to compete with that older Gallium3D driver
    I don't get Intelís total refusal to support Gallium3D.

    I understand that if there is a fine working classic driver for older hardware, the GPU vendor would not want to spend money on a Gallium port (AMD did that as well). But considering that i915g exists already and reportedly is better than the classic driver, to then spend the resources on the classic driver to achieve partial feature parity with the Gallium driver makes no economic sense from my POV. Shouldn't Intelís priority be to make their hardware customers as satisfied as possible to make them want to buy Intel products as well?

    Anybody got a clue why Intel insists on not touching Gallium Ė not even for new drivers?

Posting Permissions

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