Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mesa Finishes Up OpenGL 3, Lots Of OpenGL 4 Ahead

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

  • Mesa Finishes Up OpenGL 3, Lots Of OpenGL 4 Ahead

    Phoronix: Mesa Finishes Up OpenGL 3, Lots Of OpenGL 4 Ahead

    Aside from the list of Mesa's supported OpenGL 3.x and 4.x extension documentation having been updated today for Nouveau OpenGL 3.3 support, Ian Romanick took the time to clean up the list and clarify a few items...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTU4NTA

  • #2
    and sandy bridge?

    no opengl 3.3? i see the people will stuck with 3.1

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Andrecorreia View Post
      no opengl 3.3? i see the people will stuck with 3.1
      And no OpenGL 1.4 for radeon r200, just OpenGL 1.3. That's a disaster.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by stikonas View Post
        And no OpenGL 1.4 for radeon r200, just OpenGL 1.3. That's a disaster.
        Sandybridge hardware actually supports GL 3.3, though, if the driver support is there. Though I question whether the hardware is really fast enough to use with software that needs it, anyway.

        Comment


        • #5
          GL4.2 is fairly close

          Again, the 3 extensions that need major work in 4.0 are tesselation, fp64, and subroutines. I'm not aware of anyone starting these yet.

          The rest of 4.0, 4.1, and 4.2 are either done or in progress and pretty close to being done. Anyone looking to start new work should probably be looking at 4.3 or 4.4 at this point.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by stikonas View Post
            And no OpenGL 1.4 for radeon r200, just OpenGL 1.3. That's a disaster.
            Well, seeing as r200 hardware only supports OpenGL 1.3, it can't be that surprising...or were you being faceious?

            Similarly, Sandy Bridge CPUs (which have HD 2000/3000 graphics), support only OpenGL 3.1 at most (had to search deep for that one). So, yeah, you're sort of stuck there... Edit: Oh, is the hardware actually capable of 3.3? Interesting...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Nobu View Post
              Similarly, Sandy Bridge CPUs (which have HD 2000/3000 graphics), support only OpenGL 3.1 at most (had to search deep for that one). So, yeah, you're sort of stuck there... Edit: Oh, is the hardware actually capable of 3.3? Interesting...
              Yeah, but Intel never exposed 3.2/3.3 on their windows drivers either, which is why most of the spec sheets all say 3.1.

              The geometry shader support is apparently very different from what later hardware does, and would require a lot of extra work, so that's why no one has done it yet.

              Comment


              • #8
                will the file be renamed to GL4.txt when all mesa drivers support GL3.3?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Since Intel is useless POS when is comes to performance, let's hope the driver development for Nvidia and AMD works faster in the future. LLVM compiled, reverse engineered open drivers are the only option for gaming if you don't like commercial quality drivers.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I have no idea what's involved in adding GL compliance. Why does it take so long? Is it just a low priority, are there just not people working on it, or is it really complicated?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by kaprikawn View Post
                      I have no idea what's involved in adding GL compliance. Why does it take so long? Is it just a low priority, are there just not people working on it, or is it really complicated?
                      It's really complicated and the driver teams are one tenth the size of what you'd find on Windows (plus a lot of the people are doing this as a hobby, not as paid work.)

                      The amazing thing is that by sharing code between the drivers, results are coming much faster than in closed-source drivers. Do you know how long it took Intel and Ati to get proper OpenGL support on Windows? Close to a decade. The open-source drivers got there in half the time using teams 1/10 the size.

                      That's the power of Free Software right there.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                        It's really complicated and the driver teams are one tenth the size of what you'd find on Windows (plus a lot of the people are doing this as a hobby, not as paid work.)

                        The amazing thing is that by sharing code between the drivers, results are coming much faster than in closed-source drivers. Do you know how long it took Intel and Ati to get proper OpenGL support on Windows? Close to a decade. The open-source drivers got there in half the time using teams 1/10 the size.

                        That's the power of Free Software right there.
                        That's why I can't wait for game developer to start having contact with open drivers. The development will probably skyrocket as game devs uncover bugs which affects their games and provide patches to mesa/gallium.

                        As a side note, my feeling is that most of mesa developers are paid by vmware/red hat/intel/amd, not hobbists... but i may be wrong there...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by caligula View Post
                          Since Intel is useless POS when is comes to performance, let's hope the driver development for Nvidia and AMD works faster in the future. LLVM compiled, reverse engineered open drivers are the only option for gaming if you don't like commercial quality drivers.
                          It's enough for a lot of games, actually (especially more recent IGPs).

                          The radeon driver is not the fruit of reverse engineering. Also, who says "commercial" says "bad side effects".

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                            It's really complicated and the driver teams are one tenth the size of what you'd find on Windows (plus a lot of the people are doing this as a hobby, not as paid work.)

                            The amazing thing is that by sharing code between the drivers, results are coming much faster than in closed-source drivers. Do you know how long it took Intel and Ati to get proper OpenGL support on Windows? Close to a decade. The open-source drivers got there in half the time using teams 1/10 the size.

                            That's the power of Free Software right there.
                            You probably mean open source. The display drivers are not GNU and sharing results is open source. Free software is kind of nice but most GNU projects are a bit outdated when it comes to cutting edge technology.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by caligula View Post
                              You probably mean open source. The display drivers are not GNU and sharing results is open source. Free software is kind of nice but most GNU projects are a bit outdated when it comes to cutting edge technology.
                              But the kernel most certainly is.

                              As a side note, my feeling is that most of mesa developers are paid by vmware/red hat/intel/amd, not hobbists... but i may be wrong there...
                              AFAICT, Nouveau is almost completely done by hobbyists. Intel is mostly paid and AMD is somewhere in between (started out as a hobbyist project, but several of the core developers were hired later on.)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X