Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Fourth Release Candidate For Mesa 7.5

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

  • A Fourth Release Candidate For Mesa 7.5

    Phoronix: A Fourth Release Candidate For Mesa 7.5

    The release of Mesa 7.5.0, which is the first version of this open-source 3D stack to include support for Gallium3D, is running a bit behind schedule. Fortunately, however, Brian Paul has pushed out what is the fourth (and final) release candidate for the 7.5 series...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NzM1MA

  • #2
    Its a damn shame that all this work is for mostly nothing because the most popular GPUs for Linux (NVIDIA with the binary driver) cannot take advantage of Mesa. Why don't the developers of Mesa work with NVIDIA to get this included in the binary drivers ??

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by bugmenot View Post
      Its a damn shame that all this work is for mostly nothing because the most popular GPUs for Linux (NVIDIA with the binary driver) cannot take advantage of Mesa. Why don't the developers of Mesa work with NVIDIA to get this included in the binary drivers ??
      Probably because NVidia has its own stack and isn't interested in supporting anything else. Besides, Mesa is mostly MIT-licensed so Nvidia should be able to grab any parts they like anyway.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by bugmenot View Post
        Its a damn shame that all this work is for mostly nothing because the most popular GPUs for Linux (NVIDIA with the binary driver) cannot take advantage of Mesa. Why don't the developers of Mesa work with NVIDIA to get this included in the binary drivers ??
        The most popular? No, that's not true: Intel is far more popular if you measure popularity as the number of sales.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by bugmenot View Post
          Its a damn shame that all this work is for mostly nothing because the most popular GPUs for Linux (NVIDIA with the binary driver) cannot take advantage of Mesa. Why don't the developers of Mesa work with NVIDIA to get this included in the binary drivers ??
          It would be a step backwards for Nvidia blobs.
          Speed wise and feature wise.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
            The most popular? No, that's not true: Intel is far more popular if you measure popularity as the number of sales.
            Pretty sure he's talking about discreet solutions and not IGP's.

            Comment


            • #7
              So let me get this straight .. NVIDIA have their own Mesa type 3D system in their driver ?? I just thought Mesa was like DirectX where the driver took advantage of the 3D system/libraries.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by bugmenot View Post
                So let me get this straight .. NVIDIA have their own Mesa type 3D system in their driver ?? I just thought Mesa was like DirectX where the driver took advantage of the 3D system/libraries.
                They use their own GL stack which is far more optimized then a "generic" solution like Mesa3d.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I believe Mesa is an open-source implementation of OpenGL, and Nvidia uses their own closed-source implementation.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                    Pretty sure he's talking about discreet solutions and not IGP's.
                    GPUs cover both IGPs and discrete chips. Besides, Intel's IGPs are more popular than Nvidia's IGPs and discrete solutions put together.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                      Intel's IGPs are more popular than Nvidia's IGPs and discrete solutions put together.
                      I know that, but I believe he is still talking about discreet solutions alone. Lets face it, nobody in their right mind tries to do 3d intense graphics on even the fastest IGP solution.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                        I know that, but I believe he is still talking about discreet solutions alone. Lets face it, nobody in their right mind tries to do 3d intense graphics on even the fastest IGP solution.
                        Call me crazy, but there are IGP Radeon chipsets with unified shaders, which are definitely able to compete with their discrete cousins. Also, Poulsbo and PowerVR accelerators (based on Imagination SGX) are fairly beefy for their size and power consumption.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                          I know that, but I believe he is still talking about discreet solutions alone. Lets face it, nobody in their right mind tries to do 3d intense graphics on even the fastest IGP solution.
                          Recent IGPs are more potent than people give them credit. I've used a Quadro NVS 135M (equivalent to an 8400M with shared memory) to develop a beefy VR application: displacement mapping, SSAO, shadow maps, ... Result? 30fps @800x600 (no SSAO) or 30fps @640x480 (with SSAO), using 2x FSAA. This scales to ~72fps @1600x1200 on a 4850 (4x FSAA & stereo rendering).
                          Last edited by BlackStar; 06-27-2009, 02:56 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                            Result? 30fps @800x600 (no SSAO) or 30fps @640x480 (with SSAO). .
                            640 and 800 resolutions hardly qualify as beefy.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                              640 and 800 resolutions hardly qualify as beefy.
                              Do you have *any* idea what displacement mapping and SSAO stand for?

                              To put things into perspective, the NVS 135 is an IGP that is advertized as 2d only and comes *without* any memory. Its results fall somewhere between a discrete 7600 and 7800 GPU and have better image quality to boot.

                              Make no mistake, recent IGPs from nvidia and esp. ati pack quite a bit of horsepower.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X