Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Intel SNA & Glamor Acceleration On Ivy Bridge

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,351

    Default Intel SNA & Glamor Acceleration On Ivy Bridge

    Phoronix: Intel SNA & Glamor Acceleration On Ivy Bridge

    Back in May I carried out some performance tests on Intel's Sandy Bridge comparing UXA, SNA, and GLAMOR for 2D acceleration. In this article is a similar set of tests but for Intel's latest-generation Ivy Bridge HD 4000 graphics.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17531

  2. #2

    Default

    So what the point of glamor acceleration?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    70

    Default CPU or GPU

    is this SNA being done on the Ivy bridge CPU or the integrated HD4000 GPU?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Old Europe
    Posts
    904

    Default

    If you follow the GIT commits by Chris Wilson you might agree that this guy really is a big win for intel users.

    http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/dri...deo-intel/log/

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,006

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RussianNeuroMancer View Post
    So what the point of glamor acceleration?
    As, I understand it, its supposed to accelerate 2D using 3D or something.
    But the performance doesn't look very good (yet?) though.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Old Europe
    Posts
    904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    As, I understand it, its supposed to accelerate 2D using 3D or something.
    But the performance doesn't look very good (yet?) though.
    Yes, because Glamor is a generic approach.

    If you take a look at the SNA work of Chris Wilson you will spot a tremendous
    amount of hardware-specific optimisations and micro optimisations.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,006

    Default

    How many graphics acceleration architectures does X.org have?
    XAA, EXA, UXA, SNA, GLAMOR? Any more?

    And how many of these are still in use?
    Maybe it would be good if it had just one unified acceleration architecture?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Maybe it would be good if it had just one unified acceleration architecture?
    Considering the SNA results, it's the exact opposite - there should be card-specific architectures, each playing to the strengths of the specific card.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Intel SNA & Glamor Acceleration On Ivy Bridge

    Back in May I carried out some performance tests on Intel's Sandy Bridge comparing UXA, SNA, and GLAMOR for 2D acceleration. In this article is a similar set of tests but for Intel's latest-generation Ivy Bridge HD 4000 graphics.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17531
    SNA has been great for awhile. It's great to see it nearing ready status.
    Although I really wish Glamour "worked", it doesn't seem to likely. Apple tried getting 2d over gl via quartz 2d extreme gl (iirc) yet they haven't been able to get it to work well enough in all cases.
    Looks like ogl just can't be formed into a decent 2d acceleration language.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    How many graphics acceleration architectures does X.org have?
    XAA, EXA, UXA, SNA, GLAMOR? Any more?

    And how many of these are still in use?
    Maybe it would be good if it had just one unified acceleration architecture?
    XAA has been removed, hasn't it? Or they're about to, at least.

    And UXA, SNA, and GLAMOR are all Intel-specific.

    EXA is what everyone else uses.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •