Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Ivy Bridge - Linux: GL 3.0, Windows: GL 4.0

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

  • Intel Ivy Bridge - Linux: GL 3.0, Windows: GL 4.0

    Phoronix: Intel Ivy Bridge - Linux: GL 3.0, Windows: GL 4.0

    While the Intel Linux graphics developers have postponed the OpenGL 3.1 support until probably next year, the Intel Windows driver developers have now managed OpenGL 4.0 support, which compliments the OpenCL 1.1 support on Ivy Bridge -- another feature not found at this point in the Intel Linux GPU driver...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA5NzM

  • #2
    I have yet to see anything of value requiring OpenGL 3.0 or later on Linux. OilRush seems to run fine on drivers advertising 2.1. And nothing released since runs on GL 3 or later.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by allquixotic View Post
      I have yet to see anything of value requiring OpenGL 3.0 or later on Linux. OilRush seems to run fine on drivers advertising 2.1. And nothing released since runs on GL 3 or later.
      The Oilrush developers claim that OpenGL 3.3 is required for their game.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
        The Oilrush developers claim that OpenGL 3.3 is required for their game.
        Well, it's possible that they only require some small subset of GL 3.x, and that subset is supported by mesa even though it advertises "GL 2.1". In fact I think that's probably the reality. Mesa won't increment its actual GL version advertisement until it supports the _entire_ version it advertises, not just some of it. That way people don't file tons of bugs about unsupported extensions etc.

        Comment


        • #5
          I wonder why is OpenGL 4 lagging so much on Linux Intel driver. This is not even priority under windows, and yet they matched it to 4. Why such a lag? Why they cannot develop it as join effort? Whats the real problem under the hood?

          Comment


          • #6
            Intel is almost certainly the largest Mesa contributor, so I'd say they are doing fine. It is unreasonable to expect them (or act snippy, as you seem to be doing) to bring up the entire stack (like cairo, X, wayland, pixman) to Windows levels on their own.
            I would like to see how well ivb performs when turning on sna, rc6.

            Comment


            • #7
              I completely agree with crazycheese and liam.

              I would also like to point out that in some ways I think its kind of a good thing that open source drivers don't work with newer versions of openGL, because they're not ready yet. Regardless of demand, game developers like Blizzard might get discouraged to support an OS where the Nvidia proprietary drivers are really the only ones completely reliable and fully equipped, relatively speaking. Intel is 2nd best, and as this article points out, it is still notably behind. So I'm thinking that unless the open source driver devs for some reason decide to jump to future versions of opengl before they really optimize their code, not supporting future versions of opengl will help prevent people from using these drivers for games that they can't handle, even if newer versions of opengl were supported. Then, only the fully supported devices will be used.

              What I find weird is Linux is really the only OS that should care about opengl 3 and higher, yet it has the weakest support for it. Mac, AFAIK, doesn't have much support for oGL4 and Windows prefers DX.

              Comment


              • #8
                well intel "Linux: GL 3.0, Windows: GL 4.0" thats why i don't buy intel products!

                Comment


                • #9
                  I know that you only buy hardware with AMD logo on it. Don't know if AMD addiction is good. As TSMC produces the gpus for AMD and NVIDIA it does not matter which dedicated card you buy, nothing was produced in germany. Often cpus are cheaper from AMD, but only because they are slower. With every new Intel cpu generation the AMD prices have to go down. What AMD does is definitely really stupid, the fastest cpus they sell do not have got onchip vga, only the slow ones got a gpu. But as you certainly know that you won't get any fglrx driver updates for hd 42xx and that gfx core is used for am3 solutions and you do not get any video acceleration with radeon oss compared to intel oss, what is the better choice? Buying the slower FM1 cpus? Buy an addional AMD dedicated gpu which will be dropped from the binary driver while the cards are still sold? I don't think that AMD is the best choice with the one and only exception that the hardware is often cheaper. If that matters for you, then buy it. Opterons btw. are the worst choice for a gamer, too low speed/core.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Kano View Post
                    I know that you only buy hardware with AMD logo on it. Don't know if AMD addiction is good. As TSMC produces the gpus for AMD and NVIDIA it does not matter which dedicated card you buy, nothing was produced in germany. Often cpus are cheaper from AMD, but only because they are slower. With every new Intel cpu generation the AMD prices have to go down. What AMD does is definitely really stupid, the fastest cpus they sell do not have got onchip vga, only the slow ones got a gpu. But as you certainly know that you won't get any fglrx driver updates for hd 42xx and that gfx core is used for am3 solutions and you do not get any video acceleration with radeon oss compared to intel oss, what is the better choice? Buying the slower FM1 cpus? Buy an addional AMD dedicated gpu which will be dropped from the binary driver while the cards are still sold? I don't think that AMD is the best choice with the one and only exception that the hardware is often cheaper. If that matters for you, then buy it. Opterons btw. are the worst choice for a gamer, too low speed/core.
                    Excuse me, what?

                    What has AMD got to do with this?

                    (I tried searching both the article and the discussion and the only mentions of AMD were on your post.)

                    Edit: I didn't notice Qaridarium's post. My eyes must have somehow skipped it automatically after reading the poster's name.
                    Last edited by M1kkko; 05-06-2012, 03:32 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I'd certainly like to see the GL support catch-up quicker for the open-source drivers under Linux, but at this point it's not happening without a fundamental change at Intel.
                      ... or at AMD and perhaps even NVIDIA as well. It would be nice to see AMD double its Linux team and expand their development to more driver-generic Mesa stuff. Don't get me wrong, I think the current team is awesome, but they sure could use more resources.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Azpegath View Post
                        ... or at AMD and perhaps even NVIDIA as well. It would be nice to see AMD double its Linux team and expand their development to more driver-generic Mesa stuff. Don't get me wrong, I think the current team is awesome, but they sure could use more resources.
                        I kinda just realized this now, but I don't think AMD will even attempt to do that because they've got bigger issues to worry about. AMD's recent decision to REALLY support linux has happened at a pretty inconvenient time for them. I'm sure if they put as much effort as they have now about 4 years ago, they wouldn't be struggling this hard to catch up.

                        AMD needs to hurry up and release Trinity, because at this point, I feel like that's their only hope in staying in the CPU market. I feel like if they ditched their CPU branding and went only GPU, they'd probably beat nvidia every year.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
                          AMD's recent decision to REALLY support linux has happened at a pretty inconvenient time for them.
                          Hmm? In "REALLY" you mean catalyst catching up or radeon program?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                            Hmm? In "REALLY" you mean catalyst catching up or radeon program?
                            Actually, I was saying specifically they weren't catching up. My point was by the time AMD finally legitimately cared about linux, they started to not do so great with their other products, so in turn they don't have the time or resources to care about a minority when they have bigger problems to solve.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              On the other hand, Windows driver for Intel is horribly bugged.
                              1) It locks up machine on some graphic operations
                              2) It locks up machine if I try to update it using windows update.
                              3) It haves troubles with power management so it locks up machine on powersave enter/exit.
                              4) It so crapwrecked that Firefox blacklists it for WebGL and developer's 3D page view.

                              So it would lock up in week of uptime (or even faster if I enable DPMS powersave). On other hand, I have no trouble to get 2 month of uptime with Linux driver and it's both quite fast and Firefox can use it for webGL and 3D page views. So in fact I like Linux version of driver more. In fact it's very good driver. Though sure, there is room to grow.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X