Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Gallium3D's LLVMpipe Driver Is Now Much Faster

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,317

    Default Gallium3D's LLVMpipe Driver Is Now Much Faster

    Phoronix: Gallium3D's LLVMpipe Driver Is Now Much Faster

    The Gallium3D LLVMpipe driver that's commonly used as the fallback software rasterizer on Linux desktop systems when no GPU hardware driver is present, is a heck of a lot faster with the current Mesa development code. The gains are surprising and quite remarkable.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18638

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    ฿ 16LDJ6Hrd1oN3nCoFL7BypHSEYL84ca1JR
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    as OpenGL isn't meant for running on a CPU.
    Can anyone predict how it will run on a parallela (the 64 core version)?

    http://www.adapteva.com/products/sil...vices/e64g401/
    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...r-for-everyone

  3. #3

    Default

    Such results makes me wanting to see desktop environments related performance results (are KDE and Gnome tests gone with latest versions ?)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    326

    Default

    I guess it's a step in the right direction. I'm actually kind of surprised the frame rates are so low. I remember when quad cores came out and the talk of raytraced scenes and software rendering seemed so promising...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    121

    Default

    And we have a winner : 1.15 fps

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    644

    Default

    @Michael
    You can add that some ppl with not funds for better GPU's may use LLVMpipe for learning OpenGL versions not supported by their GPU's.

    For learning (which usually involve simpler gfx) LLVMpipe is quite nice. If only it had modern OpenGL support.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    101

    Default

    It would be far more useful to see benchmarks of how well WMs run against weaker hardware.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightmarex View Post
    I guess it's a step in the right direction. I'm actually kind of surprised the frame rates are so low. I remember when quad cores came out and the talk of raytraced scenes and software rendering seemed so promising...
    The CPU he used for the benchmark is an hyper-threaded dual-core (= 4 threads), not a quad core.

    Desktop Celeron/Pentium: dual-core
    Desktop i3: dual-core + HT
    Desktop i5: quad-core
    Desktop i7: quad-core + HT, some hexa-core + HT

    On the mobile market, all the i3, i5 and i7s are hyperthreaded, all i5s are only dual core, some i7s are dual core (those without a "Q" or a "X" in their name).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightmarex View Post
    I remember when quad cores came out and the talk of raytraced scenes and software rendering seemed so promising...
    I remember reading that we would all have flying cars by now. That seemed really promising too

    That said, the frame rates are pretty impressive (except for Nexuiz, of course). GPUs still have a *lot* more processing power than a typical CPU.
    Last edited by bridgman; 04-14-2013 at 10:57 AM.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisXY View Post
    Can anyone predict how it will run on a parallela (the 64 core version)?

    http://www.adapteva.com/products/sil...vices/e64g401/
    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...r-for-everyone
    If it worked then you could imagine a second attempt at the open graphics card project, with a much higher chance of producing something useful at a reasonable cost.

Posting Permissions

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