Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenGL 3.1 Not Likely In Mesa Until 2013

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
    mesa desperately needs someone with deep pockets to back it up
    Why? Do you really need OGL 4.2 now?

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Nedanfor View Post
      Why? Do you really need OGL 4.2 now?
      probably not (though it'd be good to have) but i thing the FOSS stack needs Video Acceleration, OpenCL, bug fixing, and all the other things that are left behind due to lack of manpower.

      Comment


      • #13
        I did a piglit run on fglrx the other day,

        http://people.freedesktop.org/~airli...it/fglrx-r600/

        so we can say we are a lot better in terms of actually passing tests :-)

        That is a piglit run from two AMD drivers a year apart.

        but really its only Intel working a lot on core mesa at the moment, with others expending time as jobs allow. Its not as is Red Hat can ship GL3.0 drivers anyways so working on them isn't a great spend of our time. and working on GL doesn't get you CL or video decode or anything. Also it not as if Red Hat can ship video decoders, so again no reason for us to invest heavily in them.

        Perhaps some of the distros that do ignore patents could invest more in these.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Nedanfor View Post
          Why? Do you really need OGL 4.2 now?
          Why not? It would nice being able to play OilRush at the highest quality... but again performances are the main issue. Also we need at least 3.2 to get the best from wine.
          ## VGA ##
          AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
          Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
            Why not? It would nice being able to play OilRush at the highest quality... but again performances are the main issue. Also we need at least 3.2 to get the best from wine.
            Support in Mesa != Support in drivers. At the same time we need power management, performance, OCL, hw decoding, etc. etc. so I guess that only a little minority of us would really need OGL 4.x over all these feature.

            PS. Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge only support OGL 3.x so I think that Intel isn't directly interested in supporting OGL 4.x.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by Nedanfor View Post
              Support in Mesa != Support in drivers.
              Support in mesa means drivers will support it in ~6months.

              Originally posted by Nedanfor View Post
              At the same time we need power management
              Done (Intel)

              Originally posted by Nedanfor View Post
              performance
              WIP (Intel)

              Originally posted by Nedanfor View Post
              OCL
              WIP

              Originally posted by Nedanfor View Post
              hw decoding
              Done (Intel)

              Originally posted by Nedanfor View Post
              so I guess that only a little minority of us would really need OGL 4.x over all these feature.
              But we need 3.2

              Originally posted by Nedanfor View Post
              PS. Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge only support OGL 3.x so I think that Intel isn't directly interested in supporting OGL 4.x.
              They are already working on Haswell...
              ## VGA ##
              AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
              Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by airlied View Post
                Its not as is Red Hat can ship GL3.0 drivers anyways so working on them isn't a great spend of our time. and working on GL doesn't get you CL or video decode or anything. Also it not as if Red Hat can ship video decoders, so again no reason for us to invest heavily in them.
                True, what I expect from Red Hat or any other commercial distribution that is mostly popular on servers is to only care about OpenGL up to the level it can run a composited desktop with decent performance. What I would expect though is to care about power management, but probably what customers you have with AMD graphics cards have embedded graphics that don't use that much power to matter.

                Originally posted by airlied View Post
                Perhaps some of the distros that do ignore patents could invest more in these.
                If a distribution makes money out of selling their product it will care about patents. If it doesn't make money it doesn't have what to invest, so if a mesa developer is also a Gentoo or Arch developer that would be a pure coincidence, and I don't know of other distros enabling patented code by default.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
                  They are already working on Haswell...
                  our only hope for OpenGL4 + is Intel developing their own hi end GPUS (comparable to nVidia and AMD)

                  and then again they don't use G3D

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by elanthis View Post
                    FOSS projects do not have a lot of developers. The idea that there are millions of people willing to contribute to FOSS may be true in the broadest sense, but it's certainly not true when you narrow things down to the actually important, useful, and/or relevant FOSS projects.

                    If you add up all of the people actively working on Mesa, GNOME, the desktop-related bits of the kernel, X11/Wayland, glibc and the rest of the core GNU system, and so on, you will still not have as many people as Microsoft has test engineers. The last goofy little 6-month 2D game project I worked on had a larger team than all of Mesa has.
                    When you will put Linux kernel to that list the situation is much different. Linux growth rate exceeded Windows NT in 1999. Linux had many features introduced before Windows. It seems Windows can only match in things like Mesa which aren't so important, because we have proprietary graphic drivers.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by Qaridarium
                      (edit) ubs,,, were is the comparison to the r600 driver?
                      oh I was lzy and left it as an exercise for the reader, though memory seems to point at around 7100/7600 or something like that.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X