Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Early Mesa 9.2 Benchmarks With Nouveau

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    I think the distinction here is presence of a 2D engine. If the GPU has a 2D engine that can handle EXA-style drawing functions then writing a traditional 2D driver first makes sense.

    If the GPU uses the 3D engine for 2D, then you need to write "most of a 3D HW driver" in order to run even basic 2D operations, and using something like Glamor or XA makes more sense.
    Does that imply that the AMD cards do not have a suitable 2D engine that is capable of running EXA-style drawing? Or do they don't have a 2D engine at all?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Rexilion View Post
      Does that imply that the AMD cards do not have a suitable 2D engine that is capable of running EXA-style drawing? Or do they don't have a 2D engine at all?
      No 2D engine at all. We had a 2D engine in 5xx and earlier, but it didn't do blends etc.. so we used the 3D engine for EXA anyways.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by bridgman View Post
        No 2D engine at all. We had a 2D engine in 5xx and earlier, but it didn't do blends etc.. so we used the 3D engine for EXA anyways.
        Neither does NV's 2D engine. It can do solids (with ROP) and blits. But still, setting up the 3D engine for a single, known operation is much easier than dealing with all of OpenGL. The most significant advantage being that you don't need a shader compiler. And little things, like you also don't need vertex buffers because the 3D engine has immediate mode (which is quite sufficient or even preferable for drawing a single quad).

        Comment


        • #19
          NV still has a 2d engine in Kepler?

          Then why did Nvidia's (blob) 2d performance take a nosedive after 7xxx? I recall at the time the official reason was that they no longer had a 2d engine, had to do 2d work on the 3d engine with 8xxx and onwards, and it took years to optimize it to the level of the 7xxx 2d engine.

          Google finds a lot of confirmations for this, that Nvidia dropped the 2d engine starting with 8xxx?

          Comment


          • #20
            2D Engine

            Originally posted by curaga View Post
            NV still has a 2d engine in Kepler?

            Then why did Nvidia's (blob) 2d performance take a nosedive after 7xxx? I recall at the time the official reason was that they no longer had a 2d engine, had to do 2d work on the 3d engine with 8xxx and onwards, and it took years to optimize it to the level of the 7xxx 2d engine.

            Google finds a lot of confirmations for this, that Nvidia dropped the 2d engine starting with 8xxx?
            Do you think we're making this up ? - https://github.com/pathscale/envytoo...db/nv50_2d.xml (NV50 = G80, naming always uses chipset id where the class interface first appeared)

            It doesn't do all that much and it likely uses mostly the same circuits as the 3D engine (but different interface, separate state, and who knows what the internal details are like), but it's there.

            Comment


            • #21
              No, I just see conflicting information. Nvidia claims one and you claim something else, and both have evidence.

              Hm, did it perhaps have a more full-featured 2d engine (with blends etc) before 8xxx?

              Comment

              Working...
              X