Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenGL 3.1 Not Likely In Mesa Until 2013

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by Qaridarium
    the catalyst run do have more tests ?
    Piglit automatically skips tests that drivers report they don't support - so having GL 4.2 support and more extensions than the OSS drivers mean that it can run more tests.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
      Support in mesa means drivers will support it in ~6months.
      And means this would take time that can be useful to other things.

      Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
      Done (Intel)
      Yes but r600g/nouveau need improvements in power management.

      Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
      WIP (Intel)
      Well, Sandy/Ivy Bridge performance on Linux is about 30-50% of SB/IB on Windows... And those GPUs aren't good for gaming on Windows.

      Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
      WIP
      Yes and I think OCL is more interesting than OGL 3.2/4.x.

      Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
      Done (Intel)
      As far as I know only with dedicated hardware. Gallium3D offers extensible (but less efficient) hw decoding.

      Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
      But we need 3.2
      I think we don't need it right now.

      Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
      They are already working on Haswell...
      AFAIK Intel has no plan to make high end GPUs so even if Haswell would support OGL 4.x it wouldn't be so useful.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by Nedanfor View Post
        AFAIK Intel has no plan to make high end GPUs so even if Haswell would support OGL 4.x it wouldn't be so useful.
        Ivy Bridge can already support the full GL 4 API, the fact that they don't is 100% based on their driver teams not finishing the software to do so. The hardware is already there.

        Whether the hardware is fast enough to really support applications that would try to use that support is a different matter - perhaps Haswell will be there.

        Comment


        • #24
          My theory

          I believe there is a lot of optimized third party algorithtms/code that are licensed for closed source graphic stacks and this is why those perform better. This is probably also a reason why all those mobile drivers are closed - it's simply not possible to release that code without violating the NDA, and maybe they even don't get the source itself, just the precompiled library or obfuscated IR that is compiled for the target platform. Probably exception is Nvidia and ATI who developed their stacks earlier than the competition, but then they have a lot to hide. Protecting their driver code means protecting their most valuable IP (mean easiest to copy), and probably saves them from occassional patent lawsuit.

          Mesa OTOH, suffers also from lack of manpower. It doesn't help that a lot of effort is split between the classic Intel and Gallium for AMD/Nouveau. I guess Intel doesn't want to spend time rewriting and reoptimizing all their code (if they don't foresee immediate gain) and also they'd be doing free work for the competition, since gallium tries to share code between the drivers. Third, it might not even be optimal frasmework for their driver, whereas Intel devs have free hands with the classic driver to tune it to their needs and hardware.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by smorovic View Post
            I believe there is a lot of optimized third party algorithtms/code that are licensed for closed source graphic stacks and this is why those perform better. This is probably also a reason why all those mobile drivers are closed - it's simply not possible to release that code without violating the NDA, and maybe they even don't get the source itself, just the precompiled library or obfuscated IR that is compiled for the target platform. Probably exception is Nvidia and ATI who developed their stacks earlier than the competition, but then they have a lot to hide. Protecting their driver code means protecting their most valuable IP (mean easiest to copy), and probably saves them from occassional patent lawsuit.

            Mesa OTOH, suffers also from lack of manpower. It doesn't help that a lot of effort is split between the classic Intel and Gallium for AMD/Nouveau. I guess Intel doesn't want to spend time rewriting and reoptimizing all their code (if they don't foresee immediate gain) and also they'd be doing free work for the competition, since gallium tries to share code between the drivers. Third, it might not even be optimal frasmework for their driver, whereas Intel devs have free hands with the classic driver to tune it to their needs and hardware.
            I don't get why people think there is some secret sauce in the proprietary code, there isn't. It's just optimization over and over and over. It's matter of number of people couple dozen in open source for all GPU (AMD, Intel, NVidia) while for closed driver it's several hundred for each GPU. No big secret, just lot of man time spent optimizing each possible use case and sometime doing specific codepath for specific application.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by olbi View Post
              I can't understand it. Mesa has so great support from Intel, Red Hat and others big giants of IT, and they couldn't implement 3 years old specs, where nVidia and AMD could do it in so short time. What is the main reason? No so much ppl or money for work?
              Allot of the problem is the fact that the hardware itself lagged years behind the spec, take a look, Intel GPUs didn't even support OpenGL3 till the Sandy Bridge era: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...ocessing_units

              The new HD Graphics 2500 and HD Graphics 4000 GPUs can now handle OpenGL4, but there is no reason to implement it on them as they are far too slow to handle what most games are doing these days

              Intel's team seems to be one of the major driving forces behind MESA's OpenGL code as AMD's team is too small devote the manpower to add to the spec seeing as they have such a large back catalog of GPU hardware to get working on the existing MESA code before they can even think about adding advanced features to the OpenGL stack. You've gotta get the hardware running in the first place before you can make it stable, fast and add features else it becomes a half assed monstrosity.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
                mesa desperately needs someone with deep pockets to back it up
                I hope not, beacues it would be a failure for OSS community. The idea was that payed developers provide kickstart and guidance for idependent contributors, but it looks like there is a problem with this. Can it be that mesa has so high requirements and steep learning curve (knowledge of 3d stack and hw), that the pool of possible contributors is so limited?

                <troll>
                With so many people on this forum that know what to do and how to do it better, I would expect no shortage of developers and high quality testers.
                </troll>

                If this project really needs more corporations to back it up it would be more of an industrial collaboration than community oss, and that is not a novel concept.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by olbi View Post
                  I can't understand it. Mesa has so great support from Intel, Red Hat and others big giants of IT, and they couldn't implement 3 years old specs, where nVidia and AMD could do it in so short time. What is the main reason? No so much ppl or money for work?
                  Hint - Nvidia and AMD (or at least, the part that used to be ATI) are specialists in creating graphics cards and drivers. It's how they make money.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
                    Hint - Nvidia and AMD (or at least, the part that used to be ATI) are specialists in creating graphics cards and drivers. It's how they make money.
                    Fun Fact: Nvidia doesn't give a shit about open source. Nouveau is an independent team and have no backing from Nvidia.

                    Fun Fact: AMD's open source team is still building their driver infrastructure for a decade's worth of GPU FAMILIES, maybe they could devote the man hours needed to implement more recent revisions of the OpenGL stack if they hired another 10-20 devs.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Kivada View Post
                      Fun Fact: Nvidia doesn't give a shit about open source. Nouveau is an independent team and have no backing from Nvidia.

                      Fun Fact: AMD's open source team is still building their driver infrastructure for a decade's worth of GPU FAMILIES, maybe they could devote the man hours needed to implement more recent revisions of the OpenGL stack if they hired another 10-20 devs.
                      I know. Nevertheless, the question was why Nvidia and AMD can do a better job of writing drivers than the larger companies who contribute to Mesa. And that's the answer - they're the ones who build the hardware, the ones who have the documentation, the ones who know what they're doing. It would be astonishing if they couldn't do a better job.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X