Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

VIA Publishes 2D/3D Documentation, Partners With OpenChrome

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

  • #16
    It is also a bit odd that their leading priorities are multi-head and RandR support, when those aren't really huge sought after features for IGP customers compared to say improving the 3D support or improving video acceleration.



    Actually, if VIA graphics are in use on laptops and netbooks, I can see why randr and multihead output could be a priority. As low power laptop user, being able to hotplug a projector for a presentation is many times more important than being able to play movies or 3-D apps.
    Oops, repeat idea.
    Last edited by sloggerKhan; 11-20-2008, 06:53 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Indeed... I'd say RandR support would be highest priority, followed by scaling, followed by video playback, followed by 3D in that order.

      It's the most critical to least- and it's the strongest to the weakest plays for these chips.

      UniChrome/UniChrome2 are, at best, OpenGL 1.3 capable cores- no shaders, fixed functionality, and it looks like no vertex processing present.

      Chrome9 looks to be akin to a GMA900- fragment shader support and fobbing the vertex path off on to the CPU. Chrome9's got some potential, but it won't be fully realized without Gallium3D.

      I'd be worrying about RandR first too...

      Comment


      • #18
        Can someone explain to me what the difference between open- and uni-chrome is? The openchrome wiki mentions a fork of an experimental branch in unichrome, but no details as to why it was forked or what feature difference there is, if any.
        Unichrome is clean and stable, but supports less chips and has less functionality (no XvMC, no Via's own mpeg4 accel). Openchrome has these, but might be buggier.

        Oh, and the SiS driver, don't even talk about it. It has not been updated for the later chipsets, and while it will modeset, it has frequent 2d glitches (random lines on screen, sometimes small, sometimes over the whole screen like a spider web). Vesa at least handles them fine, but forces 60HZ, awful for crt's.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
          I think they might have caught a clue with Harald over there. I'm not done yet with the perusal of the register specs, but it's looking remotely possible that they gave out enough info to at least get a full-on GL 1.3 level driver done with the info provided. A proper 1.5/2.0 capable renderer would probably have to rely on the Gallium3D framework and the LLVM to produce CPU-centric Vetex shader support at the least, based on the cursory reading here.

          So far, it's looking a lot better than the story we got last pass from them. This may actually be a useful doc release from them.
          The docs are a big and visible step forward, not cheap talk. Unfortunately, it lacks informations on the shaders, but openchrome requested these informations from VIA. They are currently gathering and checking them for 3rd party IP before a future public release.

          It takes time and a lot of diplomacy to build a healthy relationship with a manufacturer. Harald is doing a great job at driving VIA toward better understanding and support of the opensource community and this indeed helps openchrome and other opensource project a lot.
          On the other hand, I certainly believe constant mud-throwing is not helping the community a single bit, libv. I prefer to follow a more pragmatic approach.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by curaga View Post
            Unichrome is clean and stable, but supports less chips and has less functionality (no XvMC, no Via's own mpeg4 accel). Openchrome has these, but might be buggier.
            Openchrome supports all VIA IGPs, unichrome only supports few of them. Also, XvMC is a key feature, especially when attached to a low power but also low consumption and low thermal envelope CPU.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by schlobinux View Post
              Openchrome supports all VIA IGPs, unichrome only supports few of them. Also, XvMC is a key feature, especially when attached to a low power but also low consumption and low thermal envelope CPU.
              Hrm... But what were the important things you said are highest on your TODO list again? Aren't those a really close match for what i wanted to achieve with unichrome and the things the people who ran to opechrome refused to prioritise as such and therefor forked away?

              Comment

              Working...
              X