Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gallium3D Gets New Geometry Shader Support

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

  • Gallium3D Gets New Geometry Shader Support

    Phoronix: Gallium3D Gets New Geometry Shader Support

    Zack Rusin has just shared with the Mesa development community a plethora of new code. This is not code for yet another state tracker or new hardware driver, but rather it brings new geometry shader support to the Gallium3D infrastructure...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=Nzg0MQ

  • #2
    Wasn't the geometry shading what made Direct3D version 10 so awesome and wasn“t it what made people so angry about the lack of it in OpenGL 3.0?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
      Wasn't the geometry shading what made Direct3D version 10 so awesome and wasn“t it what made people so angry about the lack of it in OpenGL 3.0?
      I don't think so. Geometry shaders have been available as an OpenGL extension long before DirectX 10 was out. What made people angry about OpenGL 3.0 was that it didn't completely throw out the old standard and replace it with a shiny new object oriented one.

      Comment


      • #4
        I wonder if something like this can be used for a cool Compiz effect?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Louise View Post
          I wonder if something like this can be used for a cool Compiz effect?
          Some kickass tessellation of the desktop cube, maybe? :P

          Comment


          • #6
            Or why not add some fancy textures to the cube such as granite frames to each side

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
              Wasn't the geometry shading what made Direct3D version 10 so awesome and wasn“t it what made people so angry about the lack of it in OpenGL 3.0?
              Yes to the first question, no to the second.

              There's extensions that support that functionality that were being ratified by the ARB during the period that everyone was beta-testing those D3D10 drivers. Plans were afoot with at least one vendor to support the same ASAP under OpenGL.

              What everyone was so angry about wasn't the lack of Geometry shaders, it was the keeping of legacy (i.e. immediate mode rendering and things like it) interfaces and the omission of the new object model and API edge. 3.0 isn't the revolutionary change they'd originally promised for it- it's very weakly evolutionary in many ways.

              Comment


              • #8
                Thank you, Remco and Svartalf for the insight.

                From what I understood is that OpenGl 3.0 was supposed to be completely new, that much I know, and it should also adapt to Direct3D 10ish hardware, right? From what I remember, but correct me if I am wrong, is that with the start of Direct3D 10 there is no longer a graphical pipeline, is that correct? Which should mean that one could get more performance out of this new architecture.

                I thought that geometry shaders made that possible, but apparently they don't?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                  Wasn't the geometry shading what made Direct3D version 10 so awesome and wasn“t it what made people so angry about the lack of it in OpenGL 3.0?
                  Direct3D? Awesome? I think not....

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by thefirstm View Post
                    Direct3D? Awesome? I think not....
                    Well, it is, if we want to be honest with ourselves. OpenGL 3.2 manages to close the gap somewhat, but it's still far behind D3D10 as far as API design, ease of use and stability is concerned. (Yes, it offers more functionality in general, but (a) it's still missing binary shaders and (b) 50% of the market is using Intel IGPs, which are synonymous with "bad OpenGL support" and (c) our OSS drivers don't even support GL2.1, much less 3.2).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                      Well, it is, if we want to be honest with ourselves. OpenGL 3.2 manages to close the gap somewhat, but it's still far behind D3D10 as far as API design, ease of use and stability is concerned. (Yes, it offers more functionality in general, but (a) it's still missing binary shaders and (b) 50% of the market is using Intel IGPs, which are synonymous with "bad OpenGL support" and (c) our OSS drivers don't even support GL2.1, much less 3.2).
                      Yes, but in order to get the "awesome" D3D10, you must pay Micro$oft a large amount of $$$ U$D, only to be vendor-locked-in and restricted with at bunch of DRM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by thefirstm View Post
                        Yes, but in order to get the "awesome" D3D10, you must pay Micro$oft a large amount of $$$ U$D, only to be vendor-locked-in and restricted with at bunch of DRM.
                        The cost of MS Windows is included in the price of every new computer sold. Since nowadays you can buy a laptop for about £200 I fail to see where that 'large amount of $$$ U$D' is. Vendor lock-in? Are you using it as buzz word or you actually mean something? As for being 'restricted with a bunch of DRM', I guess you refer to having the possibility to play restricted media as dictated by the content providers--not by Microsoft.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                          Well, it is, if we want to be honest with ourselves. OpenGL 3.2 manages to close the gap somewhat, but it's still far behind D3D10 as far as API design, ease of use and stability is concerned. (Yes, it offers more functionality in general, but (a) it's still missing binary shaders and (b) 50% of the market is using Intel IGPs, which are synonymous with "bad OpenGL support" and (c) our OSS drivers don't even support GL2.1, much less 3.2).
                          Well this is partially true, even if 50% of the market is using Intel IGPs which I don't really care about, if they have a bad support of OpenGL that's their problem to solve, not OpenGL one plus if people are stupid enough to use their ultra cheap solution then why should we care about them ?

                          I mean, is DirectX worry about portability or something like that ?
                          Absolutely not.

                          I don't know much about binary shaders, but what I've read is that it's available on OpenGL ES.

                          To say true what I would like to see in the future of OpenGL
                          is a merge and standardization of all 3D features, input management and sound management like in DirectX.

                          Of course we know there's some "kind of solutions" available here and there, but no real standard.

                          EDIT :
                          Why I don't like intel gpu ?
                          Here is simple and short answer showing that intel is not a worth choice nor for performance or battery usage. Even the cheaper excuse is no more acceptable.
                          http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...ee_1201n&num=6
                          Last edited by dl.zerocool; 12-25-2009, 07:52 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by dl.zerocool View Post
                            To say true what I would like to see in the future of OpenGL
                            is a merge and standardization of all 3D features, input management and sound management like in DirectX.
                            First, in order for standards to be even followed, Windows must die a horrible and very quick death, yesterday.

                            Untill then, if it even happens, standards do not mean shit...

                            If you want some cool DirectX replacement then use SDL in the mean time...
                            Last edited by V!NCENT; 12-25-2009, 07:57 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                              First, in order for standards to be even followed, Windows must die a horrible and very quick death, yesterday.

                              Untill then, if it even happens, standards do not mean shit...

                              If you want some cool DirectX replacement then use SDL in the mean time...
                              Ahaha your first sentence is just awesome :P I would not say it, but I don't think less of it too :P

                              SDL is one of the solutions that I already used, but it's not enough advanced, most times I did used it, I had to fall back to OpenGL direct and keep SDL to manage inputs etc.

                              So it's not a real solution in a way. But in fact it works fine

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X