Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Optimizing Performance For Intel OpenGL On Linux

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,631

    Default Optimizing Performance For Intel OpenGL On Linux

    Phoronix: Optimizing Performance For Intel OpenGL On Linux

    For those OpenGL application and game developers seeking to optimize their program's performance for the Mesa hardware drivers, and more specifically the Intel HD Graphics support, here's some very useful information...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    379

    Default

    And here's some tips right back at them:
    Fix your fucking drivers, openGL 3.1 was released over 4 years ago and you *still* barely support it on opengl 4.0 class hardware. Intel is on the ARB, no excuse.
    I'm tired of having to play extension roulette with this shit.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,332

    Default

    Intel is doing excellent work in this area. If only your Windows driver team was a quarter as good or even 1/8 as available.

    Also, I'd really like to see the INTEL_DEBUG=perf option for radeon too. Wishlist

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peppercats View Post
    And here's some tips right back at them:
    Fix your fucking drivers, openGL 3.1 was released over 4 years ago and you *still* barely support it on opengl 4.0 class hardware. Intel is on the ARB, no excuse.
    I'm tired of having to play extension roulette with this shit.
    Still I can't really find a single game that needs OpenGL 4 on Linux...

    Also, it looks like you know about better GPUs with full open-source drivers, can you please share that info with us?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peppercats View Post
    And here's some tips right back at them:
    Fix your fucking drivers, openGL 3.1 was released over 4 years ago and you *still* barely support it on opengl 4.0 class hardware. Intel is on the ARB, no excuse.
    I'm tired of having to play extension roulette with this shit.
    While I personally don't have much of a need beyond opengl 3, I would have to agree that Intel really is taking their sweet time with their open source drivers. They have plenty of money so it shouldn't be hard to hire another couple developers to get things moving a little faster. AMD is catching up with them pretty quick and their GPUs are far more complex.

    I think the issue is due to Linux's low OpenGL 3+ demand and the fact that intel graphics are mostly only good for video playback and compositing purposes, so intel doesn't feel too pressured. Intel does have the best open source graphics solution so far but it won't be long until AMD passes them.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
    While I personally don't have much of a need beyond opengl 3, I would have to agree that Intel really is taking their sweet time with their open source drivers. They have plenty of money so it shouldn't be hard to hire another couple developers to get things moving a little faster. AMD is catching up with them pretty quick and their GPUs are far more complex.

    I think the issue is due to Linux's low OpenGL 3+ demand and the fact that intel graphics are mostly only good for video playback and compositing purposes, so intel doesn't feel too pressured. Intel does have the best open source graphics solution so far but it won't be long until AMD passes them.
    I don't know if you realize, but Intel's OSS team is much bigger than AMD's.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    I don't know if you realize, but Intel's OSS team is much bigger than AMD's.
    I figured as much, and I'm not surprised either. I wouldn't be surprised if they're paid MUCH better too, and were employed for longer. I would also believe it if they had more qualifications. What I find hard to believe is how their progression seems to be slowing down considerably. They seem to get hardware supported much quicker than AMD, but they seem to take much longer to improve or expand upon things. On the other hand, as far as I'm aware, Intel devs are also focusing on non-driver related code, including mesa, wayland, Qt, and X, which I assume AMD does not. Like I said though, considering intel has the upper-hand in basically every perspective when it comes to open source driver development, I find it a little weird that AMD is accomplishing tasks at a much faster rate. Even when you consider the other projects intel is involved in, such as wayland, the progression is still pretty slow. Wayland seems like a great project and I'm glad a company like intel is backing it, but they really got to stop messing with gimmicky things and focus on making it a viable replacement to X. It took way too long to get minimize working (I'm not sure if it even is working).
    Last edited by schmidtbag; 08-16-2013 at 01:45 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Hillsboro, Oregon
    Posts
    138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
    While I personally don't have much of a need beyond opengl 3, I would have to agree that Intel really is taking their sweet time with their open source drivers. They have plenty of money so it shouldn't be hard to hire another couple developers to get things moving a little faster. AMD is catching up with them pretty quick and their GPUs are far more complex.
    For what it's worth, the Mesa development team at Intel has grown by nearly 10x over the last 3 years. So there is significant investment going on. It's always hard to find qualified people, and even then, at some point you hit the classic Fred Brooks problem where adding more people to a late project only makes it later.

    The pace has picked up considerably, but so has the attention and importance. We're still on track to hit 3.3 by the end of the year, and working on 4.x features as well. If there are particular features people need sooner rather than later, we're open to that feedback.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kayden View Post
    For what it's worth, the Mesa development team at Intel has grown by nearly 10x over the last 3 years. So there is significant investment going on. It's always hard to find qualified people, and even then, at some point you hit the classic Fred Brooks problem where adding more people to a late project only makes it later.

    The pace has picked up considerably, but so has the attention and importance. We're still on track to hit 3.3 by the end of the year, and working on 4.x features as well. If there are particular features people need sooner rather than later, we're open to that feedback.
    I see your point, and I guess my perspective of Intel's progress is largely based on what I hear on Phoronix or personal experience. I just bought an intel-based laptop earlier this month, which is the first computer I personally owned using an intel GPU since 2003. I've set up linux on 2 other system with intel GPUs, but neither of them were used for much beyond browsing the internet, and they were both Core 2 systems. Since I don't intend on gaming with this laptop, I personally don't seriously care about the progress of intel GPUs (in terms of gaming technologies), or even performance directly against Windows. On the other hand, I might be more inclined to play games on linux if this GPU had the features Windows offers.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kayden View Post
    For what it's worth, the Mesa development team at Intel has grown by nearly 10x over the last 3 years. So there is significant investment going on. It's always hard to find qualified people, and even then, at some point you hit the classic Fred Brooks problem where adding more people to a late project only makes it later.

    The pace has picked up considerably, but so has the attention and importance. We're still on track to hit 3.3 by the end of the year, and working on 4.x features as well. If there are particular features people need sooner rather than later, we're open to that feedback.
    Hey Kayden, I don't need anything per se, I just wanted to say thanks for speaking up =)

    Only thing I might even remotely request is... Is there anyway you can offer a 'thermal friendly' mode on GPU's? Certain Ultrabooks (mine included) have the GPU to play games, but not the thermal management to do it for long. Even playing old games in an emulator (visualboyadvance-m and desmume) causes the CPU/GPU to kick up high enough to where the fan is on constantly and even WITH the fan on constantly the system stays pegged at 75 Celsius which is pretty hot to the touch for an ultrabook.

    Basically is there a way to tell the system "Screw the framerate, screw the power used; just never get above xyz temperature"?

Posting Permissions

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