Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ATI Gallium3D + Wine Is Bettered A Bit

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by xeros View Post
    Fourted ;-) It is interesting as most people doesn't watch xorg/dri/mesa mailing lists.
    I second your fourted. :P

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by FunkyRider View Post
      Come on, we don't need an article for each single OGL extension implemented. There are how many? 5 hundreds? Do we need 5 hundred articles to report the progress?
      There are a small number of extensions missing between current drivers and full OpenGL 4 compliance (plus the GLSL updates)

      These extensions are not easy to implement, but there are not that many of them. Each one of them brings us closer to OpenGL 3/4 support in Mesa.

      I know that you don't care about open source implementations of OpenGL, only binary vendor drivers, but many of us do. When Mesa can do OpenGL 4, it will be a great day.

      Comment


      • #18
        Actually I think stabilizing the current level of support (OpenGL 2.1) and improving performance is more important than full support for OpenGL 4.0 on paper.

        Comment


        • #19
          Agreed, but one does not preclude the other.

          Especially since r300g can't do higher than 2.1 anyway, as the hardware does not support it.

          Also, many extensions need general Mesa work, which is shared between all drivers.

          Comment


          • #20
            IMO it's Wine's fault; since when is it good behavior of an app to depend on a particular compiler optimization?

            Comment


            • #21
              The more advanced Gallium3d is the more likely that Intel will switch their drivers over to it. That would provide a nice increase in economies of scale.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by brent View Post
                Actually I think stabilizing the current level of support (OpenGL 2.1) and improving performance is more important than full support for OpenGL 4.0 on paper.
                I disagree. Performance is improving anyway. Linux/BSD/Haiku need to be on the forfront of technology in order to stand above of Mac OS X and Windows in way or the other. Literaly last time I checked, Snow Leopart still had OpenGL 2.1. Imagine your favo OS is graphicaly more advanced than the Mac...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by brent View Post
                  Actually I think stabilizing the current level of support (OpenGL 2.1) and improving performance is more important than full support for OpenGL 4.0 on paper.
                  I don't see how that's even an actual choice. Gallium3D moves us toward a lot more than "OpenGL 4.0 on paper". Stability should improve with better factoring of GPU driver vs. memory management vs. API code. Performance should improve as these components are optimized. We probably could have had better performance today if everyone was still hacking at classic Mesa drivers, but then we'd probably have been stuck there for another 5 years, watching GPUs and games/apps advance while we sit around comparing Doom 3 framerates.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by curaga View Post
                    IMO it's Wine's fault; since when is it good behavior of an app to depend on a particular compiler optimization?
                    you should compare amount and type of bugs reported with wine+nvidia blob to bugs reported on wine+mesa. and compare wine compatibility when running different graphics hardware.

                    it's not a surprise that wine works better with nvidia driver or catalyst. the driver issue is very important here.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I've got R500 and Fedora 14 installed (Gallium 0.4, Mesa 7.9). When I type glxinfo in terminal, there isn't any GL_ARB_depth_clamp listed.

                      Here http://www.mesa3d.org/relnotes-7.9.html It is mentioned that

                      GL_ARB_depth_clamp and GL_NV_depth_clamp extensions (in nv50 and r600 Gallium drivers)

                      So there is nothing about r300.

                      Does anybody have GL_ARB_depth_clamp available on his R500 hardware?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by NSLW View Post
                        I've got R500 and Fedora 14 installed (Gallium 0.4, Mesa 7.9). When I type glxinfo in terminal, there isn't any GL_ARB_depth_clamp listed.

                        Here http://www.mesa3d.org/relnotes-7.9.html It is mentioned that

                        GL_ARB_depth_clamp and GL_NV_depth_clamp extensions (in nv50 and r600 Gallium drivers)

                        So there is nothing about r300.

                        Does anybody have GL_ARB_depth_clamp available on his R500 hardware?
                        We had to disable it because it caused issues.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Thanks for reliable answer. I hope you developers will enable it again soon.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            my bíggest problem for wine+radeon is the texture compression support oblivion starts and runs but the enemys do not have a skin ,

                            and arma2 does not start because of checking texture compression feature.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              If you talk about S3TC then there is small piece of code to compile which adds support for texture compression.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by NSLW View Post
                                If you talk about S3TC then there is small piece of code to compile which adds support for texture compression.
                                mmh i think its s3tc but arma2 for exampel shows the error "dxt1...dxt5 support missing"

                                but yes i think s3tc is the openGL name.

                                is there a howto to activate the s3tc support ???

                                yes with the catalyst s3tc works... radeon needs some extra love there..

                                i hope in the future they will find a way arround this patend stuff and then vanilla OS drivers will work

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X