Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel SNA & Glamor Acceleration On Ivy Bridge

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

  • Intel SNA & Glamor Acceleration On Ivy Bridge

    Phoronix: Intel SNA & Glamor Acceleration On Ivy Bridge

    Back in May I carried out some performance tests on Intel's Sandy Bridge comparing UXA, SNA, and GLAMOR for 2D acceleration. In this article is a similar set of tests but for Intel's latest-generation Ivy Bridge HD 4000 graphics.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17531

  • #2
    So what the point of glamor acceleration?

    Comment


    • #3
      CPU or GPU

      is this SNA being done on the Ivy bridge CPU or the integrated HD4000 GPU?

      Comment


      • #4
        If you follow the GIT commits by Chris Wilson you might agree that this guy really is a big win for intel users.

        http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/dri...deo-intel/log/

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by RussianNeuroMancer View Post
          So what the point of glamor acceleration?
          As, I understand it, its supposed to accelerate 2D using 3D or something.
          But the performance doesn't look very good (yet?) though.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by uid313 View Post
            As, I understand it, its supposed to accelerate 2D using 3D or something.
            But the performance doesn't look very good (yet?) though.
            Yes, because Glamor is a generic approach.

            If you take a look at the SNA work of Chris Wilson you will spot a tremendous
            amount of hardware-specific optimisations and micro optimisations.

            Comment


            • #7
              How many graphics acceleration architectures does X.org have?
              XAA, EXA, UXA, SNA, GLAMOR? Any more?

              And how many of these are still in use?
              Maybe it would be good if it had just one unified acceleration architecture?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                Maybe it would be good if it had just one unified acceleration architecture?
                Considering the SNA results, it's the exact opposite - there should be card-specific architectures, each playing to the strengths of the specific card.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by phoronix View Post
                  Phoronix: Intel SNA & Glamor Acceleration On Ivy Bridge

                  Back in May I carried out some performance tests on Intel's Sandy Bridge comparing UXA, SNA, and GLAMOR for 2D acceleration. In this article is a similar set of tests but for Intel's latest-generation Ivy Bridge HD 4000 graphics.

                  http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17531
                  SNA has been great for awhile. It's great to see it nearing ready status.
                  Although I really wish Glamour "worked", it doesn't seem to likely. Apple tried getting 2d over gl via quartz 2d extreme gl (iirc) yet they haven't been able to get it to work well enough in all cases.
                  Looks like ogl just can't be formed into a decent 2d acceleration language.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                    How many graphics acceleration architectures does X.org have?
                    XAA, EXA, UXA, SNA, GLAMOR? Any more?

                    And how many of these are still in use?
                    Maybe it would be good if it had just one unified acceleration architecture?
                    XAA has been removed, hasn't it? Or they're about to, at least.

                    And UXA, SNA, and GLAMOR are all Intel-specific.

                    EXA is what everyone else uses.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X