No announcement yet.

Intel's Mesa Team Has Grown About 10x In Three Years

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Well, AMD's open source team has grown from one guy to five in the last five years, isn't it? Meaning it has been x5.
    So if you consider the size of open source teams compared to the size of the company, I would say AMD's Linux effort is actually bigger than Intel's.
    On the whole, however, these comparisons make little sense, I guess. Congratulations to both companies for developing mesa.


    • #17
      Originally posted by Linuxhippy View Post
      They may have grown a lot, yet they still seem to ignore almost all bug-reports filed at freedeskop's bugzilla, whereas a bug filed against the intel-ddx is usually fixed in a day or two by Intel's SNA hacker chris wilson...
      I can confirm your impression. For me, the important patches to get Steam/SourceEngine games running on Gen4 graphics came from a non-Intel programmer called Chris Forbes.


      • #18
        I don't know which features are used more often, but i just prefer when games run without override and reasonable fast. Source engine games are not the fastest but could compete with lowend nvidia cards, Killing Floor has no rendering errors (but maybe ask the D3D team to resolve some speed issues), Serious Sam 3 needs attention, i did only test mesa 9.1.x but will test again 9.2 when is released. Hopefully no override value is required - even with that set it was basically slow as hell. I mainly test Ivy Bridge as i don't have got Haswell. It is at least nice that Intel wants feedback which issues should be fixed first, lets see if i could play my favorite Linux games without switching gfx cards all the time KF i mainly play with AMD cards (a bit faster than Intel, no rendering errors), Source engine (L4D2) runs best with Nvidia. For SS3 all OpenGL implementations are slow. But thats a general problem, even the OpenGL stack on Win is slower than D3D - but Intel Linux is definitely the worst.


        • #19
          Originally posted by xeekei View Post
          My statement was more general, there's no reason to keep drivers proprietary. They are hardware specific anyway, and the hardware is proprietary.
          Of course their Windows driver must remain proprietary.

          The proprietary Linux driver is simply a port of that.

          AMD will not start using Mesa as their driver on Windows, so Catalyst is here to stay. And on Linux it supports OpenCL, OpenGL 4, and a bunch of other things which are important for their paying customers.

          I want to see FLOSS drivers develop, and I am very happy about recent changes and progress, but I do understand why Catalyst is still there.


          • #20
            @Chol: I should point out that I do contract to Intel now -- so not quite the free agent I might appear to be


            • #21
              Originally posted by phoronix View Post
              Phoronix: Intel's Mesa Team Has Grown About 10x In Three Years

              When it comes to open-source Linux graphics drivers, Intel is the company most committed to their success. Intel exclusively offers their Linux graphics support through a fully open-source stack while AMD and NVIDIA are mostly focused on their proprietary graphics drivers. AMD does have a handful of employees devoted to their open-source driver while NVIDIA dedicates no one and leaves it up to the Nouveau community for reverse-engineering...

              Seems Intel is making all the right moves - becoming king of the Linux desktop addition to being the reigning king of CPUs.


              • #22
                Thankfully the prior is a good thing, unlike the latter

                (The latter leading to no innovation for years, and extreme price hikes due to lacking competition)