Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Khronos Publishes OpenGL 4.4 Specification

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Nille View Post
    And its not "(and maybe for really, really, really old OpenGL versions)."?
    I'm replying for "maybe".

    It was interensting that OpenGL ES had conformance tests but (modern) OpenGL didn't. Now OpenGL finally gets one.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by zxy_thf View Post
      Now OpenGL finally gets one.
      Where?

      ....

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by elanthis View Post
        Well, okay, the two Big New Features are ARB extensions and not guaranteed to be available on any particular GL4.4 implementation, which is annoying, but still, those features will not be possible until D3D12.
        Are you talking about GL_ARB_bindless_texture and GL_ARB_sparse_texture, or had you something else in mind? (And would you mind sharing your thoughts on the new extensions for us non-programmers?)
        I think D3D11.2 has sort of GL_ARB_sparse_texture (OpenGL had "only" GL_AMD_sparse_texture since 2011), but afaik D3D has still nothing like GL_ARB_bindless_texture (or former Nvidia's GL_NV_bindless_texture).
        Somebody knows why still no Direct State Acess?
        And what are your wishes for OpenGL 5/next?
        Core Profile only (cleaner and more efficient driver) with DSA?
        Edit: And ASTC in core profile (which would mean all next hardware would have hardware support)
        Last edited by Stebs; 07-23-2013, 06:52 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by uid313 View Post
          Too bad there is no reference implementation.
          Didn't you write the exact same thing in the last OpenGL article. Are you a spam bot?

          Originally posted by blackout23 View Post
          So will my 500 series GeForce with OGL 4.3, get support for 4.4 with a new driver? I thought that is determined by the hardware, what OGL specificatio it can support. Or is the change not so dramatic that it can be enabled with a driver?
          When starting development on the next generation of GPUs manufacturers have to try an look years ahead in time. GPUs don't implement the bare minimum for any one given API. For OpenGL they often have costume extensions that gets included in later GL versions. Some times a GL version (3.3) is so superficial that any hardware supporting the previous version should be capable of handling the new one. Some features can be implemented in software with out to much of a penalty. These reasons combine to allow some hardware to support newer APIs then what was available when they where connived. That being said yes the hardware does dictate what version of OpenGL it can handle, the text on the box just isn't the final word. The Nvidia driver also supports multiple generations of GPUs and though the driver may be capable of the latest GL version (this doesn't mean that it has a software implementation) it won't be necessarily exposed for every supported GPU.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by AJenbo View Post
            Didn't you write the exact same thing in the last OpenGL article. Are you a spam bot?
            Something changed since the last time?

            Comment


            • #21
              sparse_texture
              and
              bindless_texture

              Come from different vendors. This mean that those extension wont probably divide OGL capable GPUs into OGL versioned camps, but in vendor camps. (Nvidia GPUs implementing second, AMD first..)

              However since those got ARB status now, there MUST be consensus on them among vendors, so we should see big trio to work on inclusion of needed hardware to their gpus.

              Also 4.x and 3.x (to lesser extend) are ment to be executed on "unified" hardware base, so new features relay on the hardware that already is there.

              So it those extensions require new hw, we may see OpenGL 5 specification in "near" future.


              On the side note: at least AMD seam to be unsatisfied with peace MS develop their DX, so maybe, we could see OpenGL 5 first, and the API that pushes for new level of hw features.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Nille View Post
                Something changed since the last time?
                Found the quote for you (it's from one week ago):
                Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                Sucks that there Khronos doesn't provide any reference implementation.
                Nothing changed in regards to Khronos, but uid313 seams nicer about it. Hoverer it bet that if Khronos dropped a proprietary reference implementation tomorrow, with a license that does not allow inclusion in Linux distribution, uid313 wound be just as unhappy. Probably what he really wants is for more people to develop on mesa, and his strategy is to shame anyone involved in the graphs business to do so, rather what he should be doing is to learn C and start doing something about it.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Nille View Post
                  Where?

                  ....
                  Source: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/20...pengl-opencl/1

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    A conformance tests is just as valuable as reference implementation, if not more so.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Ty, my only Problem with this is not this part.

                      requiring that vendors submit their hardware for full certification in order to boast OpenGL 4.4 compatibility.
                      An public test suit and Reference implementation brings much more for the developers.

                      Originally posted by AJenbo View Post
                      A conformance tests is just as valuable as reference implementation, if not more so.
                      He has only some test cases and you cant compare results. E.g 3 Vendors and each of them has make the conformance test without a problem, but my program runs only on one of them. With a public reference implementation i can test by myself and see how wrong.
                      Last edited by Nille; 07-23-2013, 09:48 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by przemoli View Post
                        sparse_texture
                        and
                        bindless_texture

                        Come from different vendors. This mean that those extension wont probably divide OGL capable GPUs into OGL versioned camps, but in vendor camps. (Nvidia GPUs implementing second, AMD first..)
                        ...
                        So it those extensions require new hw, we may see OpenGL 5 specification in "near" future.
                        The new Beta OpenGL 4.4 Driver from Nvidia already features ARB_sparse_texture (all OpenGL 4 capable hardware) and ARB_bindless_texture (Geforce 6xx+ hardware), so no "division in vendor camps".
                        AMD is (as usually) slower to adopt newest OpenGL versions (they are still working on full 4.3 support), but I have no doubt that (one fine day) they will not only support OpenGL 4.4, but also ARB_sparse_texture (already having AMD_sparse_texture) and even ARB_bindless_texture, because why should it be ARB approved if only one of the main companys will support it.
                        About what hardware level is needed for the new extensions/OpenGL 4.4, here are some clues:
                        https://developer.nvidia.com/opengl-driver

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Nille View Post
                          He has only some test cases and you cant compare results. E.g 3 Vendors and each of them has make the conformance test without a problem, but my program runs only on one of them. With a public reference implementation i can test by myself and see how wrong.
                          I don't see why you wouldn't be able to compare results. I also see any where that the test aren't publicly available. Just that you have to pass the test to get certified. If that is not the case it is a shame as it would make sense to make the test available so that vendors can work on passing them, saving every body time.

                          A reference implementation only becomes relevant when the specification is ambiguous and the tests doesn't cover the issue, but even reference implementations can have bugs.

                          But none of them would guaranty that vendors chose to follow any of it any way.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by AJenbo View Post
                            I don't see why you wouldn't be able to compare results.
                            of course i can compare but i cant blame someone because i dont know how is wrong

                            Originally posted by AJenbo View Post
                            I also see any where that the test aren't publicly available.
                            i guess that because of this "The group also announced the first set of formal OpenGL conformance tests since OpenGL 2.0, requiring that vendors submit their hardware for full certification in order to boast OpenGL 4.4 compatibility."

                            In the past the pre 2.0 Tests are also not Public.

                            Originally posted by AJenbo View Post
                            A reference implementation only becomes relevant when the specification is ambiguous and the tests doesn't cover the issue, but even reference implementations can have bugs.
                            Read some of the Specifications and you Beg for and reference implementation. And, for me the most important part, you has a Implementation where you can test your Stuff.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Because there are sometimes folks from AMD, Intel or Nvidia here: are those formal OpenGL conformance tests based on Piglit?
                              If yes, me thinks Piglit should be allowed a more beautiful/up-to-date Homepage with Conformance test results etc.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Nille View Post
                                of course i can compare but i cant blame someone because i dont know how is wrong
                                The test would show who is doing it wrong.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X