Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Optimizing Performance For Intel OpenGL On Linux

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

  • 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
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      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

      Comment


      • #4
        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?

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              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, 12:45 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                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.
                Free Software Developer .:. Mesa and Xorg
                Opinions expressed in these forum posts are my own.

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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"?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
                      I find it a little weird that AMD is accomplishing tasks at a much faster rate.
                      I wonder what you mean by this. Intel drove development of the new GLSL compiler, and then development of GL 3.0, and then 3.1, and now Paul is completing the geometry shaders work to get us to 3.3.

                      If it looks like it takes less time for the one driver to gain support for a feature, it's often because someone at Intel implemented it first and did a lot of work in core Mesa to make it possible.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
                        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).
                        Don't underestimate AMD. They have an awesome team. Most of them are well known around here on Phoronix... They deserve every bit of praise that they get. Both Intel and AMD do a lot of work on Mesa. AMD did a lot to make gallium3d what it is today, and it was Intel who really made gl3 possible.

                        As far as I'm concerned it's a damn good thing that both Intel and AMD are employing OSS development teams. I applaud both.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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.
                          OK, I'm not a programmer. Please forgive me for my inadequate understanding.

                          I don't understand why Intel hasn't ported it's driver to gallium3d yet. You are already compiling into mesair, why not just implement a tgsi compiler?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                            You are already compiling into mesair
                            No, we're not. The i965 driver takes GLSL IR directly.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by mattst88 View Post
                              No, we're not. The i965 driver takes GLSL IR directly.

                              just out of curiosity with something like iLO is possible to replace your GLSL IR with LLVM IR and reuse tom stellard/Vadim work for intel drivers? i mean im not complaining or anything like it, is just the thought of maybe if intel/amd/nouveau/freedreno/etc all focus on LLVM and gallium you could remove a lot of code from Mesa and maybe make everyone jobs easy?

                              i understand you had your reservations with gallium/llvm[i think i read some time ago] but as an owner of an RadeonSI i can tell you it flies, sure is behind other drivers in some areas but what works, works really fast.

                              dunno is just a though for the future i know there are more important thing pending to worry too much about

                              thanks to all FOSS graphic team

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X