Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Former AMD Developer: OpenGL Is Broken

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Workman and his/her tools

    Yawn... Whinging about stuff that other people have done is easy. We all know where Khronos is, so you can go there and help them work on OpenGL 5.0. If you want them to copy ideas from Mantle or DirectX, that's fine too. Deprecate old APIs, introduce new ones. Knock yourself out.

    That's why it's called *OPEN* GL.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by zanny View Post
      Linux is at 3.3, Windows usually doesn't work at all
      Thats a lie. The Question is, which OpenGL Version comes with your Driver. And Windows has a Build-In OpenGL 1.4 Driver if you Hardware can only use D3D. On Both Systems each Vendor has to ship its Own OpenGL implementation and Environment.

      Comment


      • #33
        There's also this AMD vs Nvidia benchmark: http://www.gamingonlinux.com/article...benchmark.3806

        That benchmark was done by a Michael A. Marks the technical director for Aspyr Media who are porting games to Linux.

        Comment


        • #34
          DirectX is much more than D3D... DirectX allows accelaration on video 3D, sound 3dsound, and 2D, input devices...

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by zanny View Post
            The problem is not what OGL 4.4 is capable of, but that nobody supports it. OSX is stuck at 4.2, Linux is at 3.3, Windows usually doesn't work at all because everyone is using DirectX anyway. Mobile is in just as a bad a spot, except most GLES3 features on Android don't work at all because those drivers are concentrated shit.

            People like DirectX because they can ship two versions of a game - DirectX9 for old hardware, DirectX11 for new. Or just ignore old stuff and ship 11 alone. For OpenGL, there is a sliding scale of hardware support from 2.1 to 4.4 (and I'm talking about parts from the last 5 years!), every version in between, plus vendor extensions.

            I'm wondering if there would be a way to mix llvmpipe and legacy hardware to provide 3.3 compliance with software codepaths for unsupported extensions? There would of course be huge performance penalties when code touched software rendering paths, but it seems like a compromise to just say "target 3.3, use 4 branch extensions where you can, don't worry about the rest" or even GLES3 + extensions so you can have a portable mobile engine.
            This part of his criticism seemed the least valid. The situation in D3D land is not particularly different. A vast swath of Windows installs are still on XP. DirectX 11.2 is not available for Windows 7. And it's probably very likely that DX12 -- which he claims is going to be the big answer -- will require a new OS as well, or at least Window 8.x.

            OGL is fragmented as well, but it targets a much greater variety of platforms.

            Originally posted by mdias View Post
            Your train of thought seems guided by something else than just facts. There are very clear flaws present in GL - even in the most recent versions - that aren't present in D3D, and denying it is just silly.
            All things have pros and cons. This guy went down and listed the cons of some aspects of GL. You're not getting a very accurate sense of the reality by reading something in that form.

            Comment


            • #36
              microsoft again

              M$ again buying people to put out this type of lies, if opengl is so bad why i all CAD programs use it? why apple use it? this AMD guys thinks mantle is the option? lol nothing is perfect but at least opengl is improving and not control by one company

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by rikkinho View Post
                M$ again buying people to put out this type of lies,
                Of course.

                Originally posted by rikkinho View Post
                if opengl is so bad why i all CAD programs use it?
                They use D3D except the multiplattform Applications. And most CAD Applications don't use high feature Levels.

                Originally posted by rikkinho View Post
                why apple use it?
                There is nothing else and Apple doesn't has the adoption to force her own 3D API.

                Comment


                • #38
                  [QUOTE=Nille;420540]Of course.



                  They use D3D except the multiplattform Applications. And most CAD Applications don't use high feature Levels.


                  they use D3d? lol nice joke

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Azrael5 View Post
                    Good reflection here: http://www.joshbarczak.com/blog/?p=154

                    It could be possible linux distros uses directX?
                    Not whole DirectX probably, but we have d3d9 state tracker

                    It's main purpose it's now allow wine use D3D9 directly, rather translating it to OpenGL. This lead to saving cpu cycles spend on translation to OpenGL and sometimes using faster codepaths on GPU.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by DebianLinuxero View Post
                      A very serious statement.

                      I don't know much about the topic, (I think EGL is a subset of OpenGL) maybe someone could explain if that could apply to EGL too.
                      EGL is not a subset of OpenGL. It's an API covering the gap between the OS and OpenGL. It handles context creation and manipulates the context.

                      EDIT: Unless you're talking about GLES...?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        There is nothing else and Apple doesn't has the adoption to force her own 3D API.
                        Of course they do. They would just have to invest a buttload of their reserve capital in making it happen. The same way they took Objective C from rank ~50 in the most popular languages to rank 3. They hopefully just don't see reinventing the graphics API with some proprietary in house BS as particularly advantageous a move.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by zanny View Post
                          The problem is not what OGL 4.4 is capable of, but that nobody supports it. ..., Linux is at 3.3, ...
                          Not true; the proprietary OpenGL drivers for Linux from both AMD and Nvidia are currently at 4.4.

                          AMD Catalyst 14.4:
                          Code:
                          GL_VERSION=4.4.12874 Core Profile Context 14.10.1006
                          GL_SHADING_LANGUAGE_VERSION=4.30
                          Nvidia 337.25:
                          Code:
                          GL_VERSION=4.4.0 NVIDIA 337.25
                          GL_SHADING_LANGUAGE_VERSION=4.40 NVIDIA via Cg compiler

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            You can thank all the major corporations that campaigned against longpeaks because they were scared of deprecation to khronos for as to why openGL sucks now. The API is a mess.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by sgtGarcia View Post
                              nVidia blob drivers are OK, problem is with AMD ( bad drivers ) & Intel ( only OpenGL 3.3 on Linux )
                              Because open source drivers use Mesa, I would argue that Intel is doing us a favor by increasing its quality and allowing even the oldest of drivers to support the newest OpenGL standards in due time. Right now it is 3.3, but it wont be long before it catches up.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by zanny View Post
                                The problem is not what OGL 4.4 is capable of, but that nobody supports it. OSX is stuck at 4.2, Linux is at 3.3, Windows usually doesn't work at all because everyone is using DirectX anyway. Mobile is in just as a bad a spot, except most GLES3 features on Android don't work at all because those drivers are concentrated shit.

                                People like DirectX because they can ship two versions of a game - DirectX9 for old hardware, DirectX11 for new. Or just ignore old stuff and ship 11 alone. For OpenGL, there is a sliding scale of hardware support from 2.1 to 4.4 (and I'm talking about parts from the last 5 years!), every version in between, plus vendor extensions.

                                I'm wondering if there would be a way to mix llvmpipe and legacy hardware to provide 3.3 compliance with software codepaths for unsupported extensions? There would of course be huge performance penalties when code touched software rendering paths, but it seems like a compromise to just say "target 3.3, use 4 branch extensions where you can, don't worry about the rest" or even GLES3 + extensions so you can have a portable mobile engine.
                                OS X isn't `stuck' at 4.2. OS X 10.9 was updated to 4.2 system-wide. No other OS in the world has OpenGL throughout, as OS X.

                                When OS X 10.10 arrives you can expect OpenGL 4.5/5.0 to be system-wide.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X