Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Publishes Ivy Bridge Programming Documentation

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

  • Intel Publishes Ivy Bridge Programming Documentation

    Phoronix: Intel Publishes Ivy Bridge Programming Documentation

    Intel quietly pushed out their "Ivy Bridge" graphics programming documentation and register specifications on Friday. This Ivy Bridge graphics core programming documentation spans 17 files spread across three volumes and 2,468 pages of technical details concerning their latest-generation graphics...

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

  • #2
    It was announced at the intel-gfx mailing list and on Eugeni's blog, which is aggregated at planet.freedesktop.org. You have an interesting definition of "quietly", I must say

    Also, how exactly is not winning that bid "costing" Nvidia money, can anyone explain the logic of that to me? Does Nvidia now need to pay large sums of money because they didn't get the bid or something? Because *that* would mean "costing them money".

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Gusar View Post
      Also, how exactly is not winning that bid "costing" Nvidia money, can anyone explain the logic of that to me? Does Nvidia now need to pay large sums of money because they didn't get the bid or something? Because *that* would mean "costing them money".
      If Nvidia had had a proper open source driver, they would have gotten that order. Therefore their bad strategy (to keep their drivers closed) just cost them the order, which equals half a billion dollars.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by M1kkko View Post
        If Nvidia had had a proper open source driver, they would have gotten that order. Therefore their bad strategy (to keep their drivers closed) just cost them the order, which equals half a billion dollars.
        Yeah, it cost the the order. But how is that costing them money? This is what I don't get.

        Hmm, either I read wrong before or the article has changed, it now says "beginning to lose them a great sum of money". I still don't get it. They had money and now they don't anymore? That would mean *losing* money. And there's still other people in posts saying "costing them money".
        Last edited by Gusar; 06-23-2012, 12:40 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Gusar View Post
          Yeah, it cost the the order. But how is that costing them money? This is what I don't get.
          At the end of the day, they would have had half a billion dollars more than they do now with their bad strategy.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by M1kkko View Post
            At the end of the day, they would have had half a billion dollars more than they do now with their bad strategy.
            Yeah, but that doesn't mean "losing money" or "costing them money".

            I swear people have gone into total crazy mode since the Linus middle finger. *Total* crazy.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Gusar View Post
              Yeah, but that doesn't mean "losing money" or "costing them money".

              I swear people have gone into total crazy mode since the Linus middle finger. *Total* crazy.
              Perhaps one could say that their strategy is costing them money indirectly, as they missed the opportunity to gain half a billion dollars.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Gusar View Post
                Yeah, but that doesn't mean "losing money" or "costing them money".

                I swear people have gone into total crazy mode since the Linus middle finger. *Total* crazy.
                I see your point - literally, nvidia didn't lose any money at all. but since they were the ones with the first offer which they turned down, that is a lost customer, and losing a customer means money loss in future terms. in other words, nvidia lost the money they have yet to receive. no matter what, you are still right, but note that the main issue is nvidia will be less profitable.



                Anyways back to the article, IMO, documentation that in-depth isn't helpful at all. What good is a reference when you've got that many pages to go through? Its a GPU reference, how much info could they possibly supply that'd be relevant to anybody, including intel's own developers?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well, even on Window$, the HD4000 video display engine and its encoder/decoder is lightyears ahead of Intel's competition. There's a smoothness and clarity to it in Blu-ray (1080p) films I just can't describe. I'd love to see developers tweak Intel's newest GPU and see just how awesome it can perform in Linux. Intel should be applauded for their noble efforts to help drive open documentation on open source platforms. These are exciting times!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Anyone who has taken high school Economics should understand the concept of opportunity-cost. Nvidia could have made a huge profit in selling those graphics cards, but they lost the order. They may not have literally lost cash they had on hand, but they did 'lose money', as they missed the opportunity to make a huge profit.

                    ...Back on track, my desktop drives me crazy. Nvidia card, cruddy video acceleration in linux (in ubuntu 12.04 there's a bug that causes vdpau to suck when using Unity 3D). MY RASPBERRY PI can play video smoother than it.
                    Definitely getting Ivy Bridge for my next desktop.
                    Last edited by sn0w75; 06-23-2012, 01:41 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Intel HD graphics ? not for 3D anyway

                      my old PC had a nvidia 8800 GTS, and that was working nicely with Linux for years.
                      Now I have an Ivy bridge i7-3370 with a wonderful open source driver.
                      the truth is I can't play anymore very simple games like the one in the humble indie bundle (Trine 2 and Shank for example).
                      and due to the S3TC issue, I find it easier to install & configure nividia binary blob than intel driver.

                      So nvidia has closed source driver which is bad, but at least you can play 3D games with it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by jockinator View Post
                        and due to the S3TC issue, I find it easier to install & configure nividia binary blob than intel driver.
                        Oh come on, libtxc_dxtn is a simple library, compilable with the usual
                        Code:
                        ./configure --prefix=/usr; make; sudo make install
                        There may even be some pre-compiled packages for your distro available in a third-party repo.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
                          Anyways back to the article, IMO, documentation that in-depth isn't helpful at all. What good is a reference when you've got that many pages to go through? Its a GPU reference, how much info could they possibly supply that'd be relevant to anybody, including intel's own developers?
                          It is rather daunting at first I remember when I first started looking into GPU programming, and figured I'd read through the G965 documentation. Then I discovered it was nearly 2000 pages (small by today's standards!), a lot of which doesn't make much sense without the right background, and quickly got lost.

                          I pretty much live and breathe these documents now, referring to them almost every day; the trick is to ask someone for pointers on where to find what you need, and after a while, you begin to see how they're organized and where to find stuff. We definitely could use some more overviews and introductory level documentation though. I've meant to try and put together a Gen assembly tutorial at some point, as it's considerably more complicated than your usual x86 stuff.
                          Free Software Developer .:. Mesa and Xorg
                          Opinions expressed in these forum posts are my own.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Gusar View Post
                            It was announced at the intel-gfx mailing list and on Eugeni's blog, which is aggregated at planet.freedesktop.org. You have an interesting definition of "quietly", I must say
                            I also posted this to google+, facebook, twitter and irc. I don't know how much more louder should we announce a new set of documentation releases .

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Kayden View Post
                              It is rather daunting at first I remember when I first started looking into GPU programming, and figured I'd read through the G965 documentation. Then I discovered it was nearly 2000 pages (small by today's standards!), a lot of which doesn't make much sense without the right background, and quickly got lost.
                              Yeah, I had the same experience. It looked like all that odd symbols from matrix to me in the beginning, and after looking and looking at all those registers and their content it suddenly transformed itself into something meaningful. Like in Matrix movie, when you look at some strange symbols and discover that it is a kernel panic^W^W Neo running away from the GPU hangs .

                              But speaking seriously, it is a very interested read, as those documents explain lots of background behind the programming of different stages of GPU. At least for execution units programming, 3d engine programming and core stuff it is a very interesting read to understand how things work under the hood. Display part is very interesting as well, but it requires much more background to make sense though..

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X