Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RSXGL: OpenGL 3.1 Support For The PlayStation 3

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

  • RSXGL: OpenGL 3.1 Support For The PlayStation 3

    Phoronix: RSXGL: OpenGL 3.1 Support For The PlayStation 3

    According to a developer that began working on a PlayStation 3 graphics driver, which he's calling RSXGL, he reportedly got OpenGL 3.1 working from this Sony gaming console...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE5MTg

  • #2
    There was this disapointment tha PS3 "next slim" is not hardware improvement...

    But now we have solution for it Homebrew to boot

    GJ!

    Comment


    • #3
      That developer lie or is freaking

      Nvidia itself puts OpenGL 3.x support since 8800 series (DX 10 level support) and this freak claimed that he can do the same with a 7800 GTX.

      No, I don't buy this.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by DebianLinuxero View Post
        this freak
        Alexander Betts is not a "freak", but apparently quite talented developer and he did excellent job - actually performance bump without and with his work is really freaking enormous:

        * without RSXGL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22642664/expedite_psl1ght.log

        * with RSXGL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22642664/expedite_rsxgl.log

        Originally posted by DebianLinuxero View Post
        Nvidia itself puts OpenGL 3.x support since 8800 series (DX 10 level support) ... claimed that he can do the same with a 7800 GTX.

        No, I don't buy this.
        you maybe not buying it and if it's OpenGL 2.x or OpenGL 3.x doesn't really matter to me considering the performance improvement his work brought as per above numbers. also, no one knows what are the specifications of the "RSX" chip inside PS3 - it's just rumored that it's close to "7800 GTX", but no one except Sony and nVidia really know. in any case, what did Alexander Betts works and gives great performance - what better prove than that. last, but not least - it could be CellBE provides additional computational power to the "RSX" chip for what's necessary additionally to OpenGL 2.x in order to have OpenGL 3.x. so, do you "DebianLinuxero" happen to know those things for sure and based on that make statements?

        so, thank you Alexander, keep going and don't be discouraged by incompetent Linux script-kiddies, calling you "freak".
        Last edited by const; 09-23-2012, 04:54 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by DebianLinuxero View Post
          Nvidia itself puts OpenGL 3.x support since 8800 series (DX 10 level support) and this freak claimed that he can do the same with a 7800 GTX.

          No, I don't buy this.
          The point Betts made is that he started out with a legacy free API. Some new features of OpenGL 3.x were supported by older graphics hardware and were therefore released as OpenGL 2.x extensions as well. Betts says that he hasn't implemented full support for all OpenGL 3.1 features (which as you say isn't possible) but he also hasn't implemented most OpenGL 2.x functionality that isn't in GL3 and is probably not available in the RSX anyway (mostly FFP support).

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by mememe View Post
            The point Betts made is that he started out with a legacy free API. Some new features of OpenGL 3.x were supported by older graphics hardware and were therefore released as OpenGL 2.x extensions as well. Betts says that he hasn't implemented full support for all OpenGL 3.1 features (which as you say isn't possible) but he also hasn't implemented most OpenGL 2.x functionality that isn't in GL3 and is probably not available in the RSX anyway (mostly FFP support).
            So he's not implementing GL3.1 at all then. You can't leave half it out and call it GL3.1. How would any application know what to use? you'd have to write app specifically for it. Why not just mesa to implement GL2.1 + extensions, seems like it would match the hw and be a lot more useful, the nvfs driver already exists and could be reused for many parts.

            Like people can do what they like in their own time, but he's really just invented a non-round wheel.

            Dave.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by airlied View Post
              ... but he's really just invented a non-round wheel
              in my native language there is saying that i will try to translate and i hope keep its meaning "even the God is speechless when the numbers are talking". so, "non-round" or not, the numbers in this case make enough of a statement about the work:

              * without RSXGL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22642664/expedite_psl1ght.log

              * with RSXGL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22642664/expedite_rsxgl.log

              and before that the situation with PS3 in that area was pathetic. so, i don't get the criticism - it would be appropriate only in case someone did better job for the graphics support in PS3.

              Comment


              • #8
                The thing is he is talking about OpenGL core profile 3.1 and "parts of it" in one sentence. That really just confuses people. The core profiles are specifically meant to be a baseline with a known set of extensions supported to rely on, if you take only one of those extensions away it's not 3.1 core profile any more, but just 2.1 + extensions. If we did the same thing in Mesa nouveau would have been compliant to parts of OpenGL 3.1 core profile since years. What would that buy you?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by const View Post
                  in my native language there is saying that i will try to translate and i hope keep its meaning "even the God is speechless when the numbers are talking". so, "non-round" or not, the numbers in this case make enough of a statement about the work:

                  * without RSXGL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22642664/expedite_psl1ght.log

                  * with RSXGL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22642664/expedite_rsxgl.log

                  and before that the situation with PS3 in that area was pathetic. so, i don't get the criticism - it would be appropriate only in case someone did better job for the graphics support in PS3.
                  because *he* could do a better job, he could re-use mesa, and implement what the GPU actually supports, instead of claiming to try and implement something that he can't actually implement. Implementing half a GL3.1 isn't near as useful as implementing a GL2.1 + extensions using mesa.

                  Dave.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by const View Post
                    Alexander Betts is not a "freak", but apparently quite talented developer and he did excellent job
                    First of all, my apologize for been rude speaking of this man, Alexander Betts.

                    Sorry. I didn't mean to offend.


                    you maybe not buying it and if it's OpenGL 2.x or OpenGL 3.x doesn't really matter to me considering the performance improvement his work brought as per above numbers
                    Well, but this is precisely the point of the article : A programer, a man, a talented guy (put whatever-you-want except "freak"), claimed that a RSX could do OpenGL 3.1 with his driver.


                    Also, no one knows what are the specifications of the "RSX" chip inside PS3 - it's just rumored that it's close to "7800 GTX", but no one except Sony and nVidia really know. in any case.
                    The RSX chip today hasn't secrets : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_%27...Synthesizer%27

                    In any case, even if it keeps a little secret, what it's clear is that :

                    Independent pixel/vertex shader architecture
                    OpenGL 3.x and further need a chip that supports unified shader architecture by hardware.
                    This is true for nVidia chips, for AMD/ATI's, for Intel's ...


                    it could be CellBE provides additional computational power to the "RSX" chip for what's necessary additionally to OpenGL 2.x in order to have OpenGL 3.x. so, do you "DebianLinuxero" happen to know those things for sure and based on that make statements?
                    I really doubt it. I haven't seen an OpenGL implementation (nor Direct 3D) that by support of the CPU improved or emulated such architectural lack of features like unified shaders.

                    And I could say the same to you; you don't seem to know how the implementation is, or if Cell really matters, but you are wondering too.


                    Summary : I don't critiquize the effort of making a better driver, a more efficient or with much features/extensions.
                    Simply, I don't buy the OpenGL 3.1 claim of that man, cause the hardware architecture limitations.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      You are all wrong.

                      Dev in question do not pretend to implement whole OpenGL 3.1 core profile.

                      But to treat it as a goal IF hardware support it (and if mesa support GLSL 1.40 :P ).

                      On the github is STATUS file go and read it.



                      On the other hand OpenGL 2.1 =\= OpenGL ES, so there is no guarantee that there would be full OpenGL 2.1 on PS3 either.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DebianLinuxero View Post
                        The RSX chip today hasn't secrets : [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_%27Reality_Synthesizer%27[/url
                        i think we all are missing the point, because RSX doesn't even support OpenGL 2.1 - it supports "PSGL", which is "PlayStation GL" and it's subset of OpenGL for PlayStation. so, if Alexander Betts called OpenGL 2.x then it would be again wrong and probably cause people criticizing again. that's why i think what Alexander Betts did is support of "PSGL" as subset of OpenGL 3.1, i.e. it's not full OpenGL 3.1 and it's not even full OpenGL 2.x - it's just what's necessary for "PSGL" as subset of the highest possible OpenGL version. we all just miss too much knowledge to fully understand and i think Dave Airlie that commented earlier as respected Xord developer is not that familiar with "PlayStation3" platform and architecture too and judges from not entirely correct point of view.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by const View Post
                          i think we all are missing the point, because RSX doesn't even support OpenGL 2.1 - it supports "PSGL", which is "PlayStation GL" and it's subset of OpenGL for PlayStation. so, if Alexander Betts called OpenGL 2.x then it would be again wrong and probably cause people criticizing again. that's why i think what Alexander Betts did is support of "PSGL" as subset of OpenGL 3.1, i.e. it's not full OpenGL 3.1 and it's not even full OpenGL 2.x - it's just what's necessary for "PSGL" as subset of the highest possible OpenGL version. we all just miss too much knowledge to fully understand and i think Dave Airlie that commented earlier as respected Xord developer is not that familiar with "PlayStation3" platform and architecture too and judges from not entirely correct point of view.
                          PSGL is OpenGLES 1.0 + some GLES 2.0 bits in it, so yeah it might not be able to pull of desktop GL at all, so why bother tackling desktop GL on it, just use mesa to implement the GLES bits.

                          so eyah he should aim even lower than I suggest!
                          Dave.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by airlied View Post
                            PSGL is OpenGLES 1.0 + some GLES 2.0 bits in it, so yeah it might not be able to pull of desktop GL at all, so why bother tackling desktop GL on it, just use mesa to implement the GLES bits.

                            so eyah he should aim even lower than I suggest!
                            Dave.
                            Dave, thanks to clarifying things, but i've just found in Japanese (even before i read your reply):

                            http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2.../kaigai104.htm

                            that it seems Sony claims "OpenGL ES 2.0" support for Playstation3. so, i guess they do the same, i.e. read "OpenGLES 1.0 + some GLES 2.0 " what is actually the case as you said, as "OpenGL ES 2.0 support", when technically there is no full ES 2.0 support. also, in another link that i lost, i read that graphic libraries that Sony developed for OpenGL support on Playstation3 use not only the RSX (nVidia graphic chip), but also the "Synergistic Processing Elements (SPE)" in the CellBE CPU - that i guess adds even more features compared to using just the graphic RSX processor, because SPE are 7-cores in CellBE CPU and very fast, i.e. like software emulation of graphic features.

                            so, could it be that Alexander Betts work really implements parts of OpenGL 3.1 and they are really supported by Playstation3 hardware, because of its strange architecture, i.e. "RSX (nVidia chip)+PowerPC 2-core CPU+7 cores of SPE inside the PowerPC CPU" and how Sony drivers and libraries tied together those parts to achieve what is called "PSGL for PS3"? i hope you follow me - i mean maybe what can be supported by Playstation3 hardware includes different features of different OpenGL versions including OpenGL 3.1 and that mix is actually "PSGL for PS3". as far as i understand Dave's opinion that entirely technically correct should be called as "OpenGL core version which features are fully covered + this and that extensions", but in any case in my opinion the work that Alexander Betts did is significant progress.
                            Last edited by const; 09-26-2012, 05:48 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The RSX is just a regular NV4x class chip. The only differences are in the number of execution engines and different memory access. The featureset is exactly the same. We already have a relatively good running driver for this chips MESA, it's called nv30 and implements OpenGL 2.1 + extensions.

                              I definitely don't want to downplay his achievements, all I'm saying is that he should really call it what it is and that he could have achieved even more if he would have taken the MESA infrastructure and driver we have today and implement missing/wrong bits.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X