Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenGL 4.3, OpenGL ES 3.0 Specifications Unveiled

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by ShadowBane View Post
    You have that much need for a terribly preforming softpipe that has the sole goal of being a reference implementation?
    But it would be possible, wouldn't it?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by losinggeneration View Post
      Speculative reporting isn't really reporting.
      Don't tell that to the New York Times.

      Comment


      • #18
        """The Khronos Group today announced the immediate release of the OpenGL® 4.3 specification, bringing the very latest graphics functionality to the most advanced and widely adopted cross-platform 2D and 3D graphics API. OpenGL 4.3 integrates developer feedback and continues the rapid evolution of this royalty-free specification while maintaining full backwards compatibility, enabling applications to incrementally use new features while portably accessing state-of-the-art GPU functionality across diverse operating systems and platforms. The OpenGL 4.3 specification contains new features that extend functionality available to developers and enables increased application performance. The full specification is available for immediate download."""

        OpenGL is a Royalty-Free specification. They will not give you their closed code, but you can write your own that works similar, without the concern for patents. Free specification (how it works), not free code. Of course there are side patents like S3TC, but OpenGL will destroy them eventually with new open standards.

        Comment


        • #19
          Also: http://nvidia.fullviewmedia.com/gtc2...5-B-S0610.html

          I don't think there will be another important D3D version.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
            But it would be possible, wouldn't it?
            if there's either time or money everything is possible :P At least in terms of software...

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by bridgman View Post
              Yes, but your implication seemed to be that the use of the word "Open" in the standard name meant that it should at least have an open/free implementation -- or maybe I got that wrong.
              No, you actually got it right. There absolutely should be an official open/free implementation of it. My comment was just there to point out that people had been talking about free software before 1998, there is no reason such a free implementation should have been off the table at the time.

              Originally posted by ShadowBane View Post
              You have that much need for a terribly preforming softpipe that has the sole goal of being a reference implementation? Honestly, a reference driver can't be made, because graphics cards are not uniform.
              If I got it right, Mesa is a generic implementation of OpenGL (Wikipedia). What I'm saying is that maybe the entity behind OpenGL should have had been doing something similar to Mesa from the beginning as a reference implementation...

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by M1kkko View Post
                No, you actually got it right. There absolutely should be an official open/free implementation of it. My comment was just there to point out that people had been talking about free software before 1998, there is no reason such a free implementation should have been off the table at the time.



                If I got it right, Mesa is a generic implementation of OpenGL (Wikipedia). What I'm saying is that maybe the entity behind OpenGL should have had been doing something similar to Mesa from the beginning as a reference implementation...
                Mesa is more of a cross-platform framework. I'd say the swrast driver is about the closest thing to what a reference implementation of OpenGL would be.

                I wouldn't expect them to create an entire framework designed to run on multiple different GPUs when they don't even know what kind of hardware is going to be out there.

                That would certainly be an interesting project to have around, but i don't think it would really be very useful. Mostly as a way to test the Mesa implementation against the behaviour of the reference implementation, I suspect. Every now and then some code might get shared, but i suspect it would be very little with the different scopes of the projects.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                  BTW before you pick a specific proprietary implementation as your "reference", you might want to read up on strict vs relaxed implementations. There are some significant differences in the way that out-of-spec API calls are handled, each with pros and cons.
                  I'll help a little here
                  http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...uck-They-don-t

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Here's a (rather hastily written) review of OpenGL 4.3:

                    http://www.g-truc.net/doc/OpenGL4.3review.pdf

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Sigh. And OpenGL ES 3.0 still lacks geometry shaders.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Geometry shaders are not a good fit for mobile hardware

                        Originally posted by elanthis View Post
                        Sigh. And OpenGL ES 3.0 still lacks geometry shaders.
                        Somewhere on these forums is a post explaining this. It says that mobile hardware has to be above all else power efficient and the impact of geometry shader processing circuitry on power consumption simply outweighs their usefulness.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Do r600/r700 have all the required hardware features for OpenGL ES 3.0? Except for ETC textures, I understand no desktop GPU has those.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Ansla View Post
                            Do r600/r700 have all the required hardware features for OpenGL ES 3.0? Except for ETC textures, I understand no desktop GPU has those.
                            If ES is a subset of regular OpenGL i don't see a reason not to have the necessary features.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Support for new texture formats will be provided with a workaround (in software) on GPU's that don't have the hardware for ETC textures.

                              Drivers can do a lot too you know

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Ansla View Post
                                Do r600/r700 have all the required hardware features for OpenGL ES 3.0?
                                Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
                                If ES is a subset of regular OpenGL i don't see a reason not to have the necessary features.
                                OpenGL ES 3.0 is mostly based on OpenGL 3.3, but it lacks some 3.x features (notably including geomitry shaders), and does include some 4.x features (notably including ETC2/EAC/ASTC texture compression).

                                So while OpenGL ES 3.0 is a subset of OpenGL 4.3, it is not a subset of OpenGL 3.3, which is all r600/r700 supports. That said, considering the limited number of 4.x features in ES 3.0, I'd say r600/r700 hw support is likely (except for the new texture compression formats), but I'm not an expert and can't say for sure.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X