Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

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

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,104

    Default 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. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    221

    Default and sandy bridge?

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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Edinburgh, UK
    Posts
    53

    Default

    Quote 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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,173

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,173

    Default 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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    460

    Default

    Quote 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...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,173

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    151

    Default

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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    218

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    231

    Default

    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?

Posting Permissions

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