Originally posted by Qaridarium
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
OpenGL 3.1 Not Likely In Mesa Until 2013
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by darkbasic View PostSupport in mesa means drivers will support it in ~6months.
Originally posted by darkbasic View PostDone (Intel)
Originally posted by darkbasic View PostWIP (Intel)
Originally posted by darkbasic View PostWIP
Originally posted by darkbasic View PostDone (Intel)
Originally posted by darkbasic View PostBut we need 3.2
Originally posted by darkbasic View PostThey are already working on Haswell...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Nedanfor View PostAFAIK Intel has no plan to make high end GPUs so even if Haswell would support OGL 4.x it wouldn't be so useful.
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by smorovic View PostI 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
-
Originally posted by olbi View PostI 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?
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
-
Originally posted by 89c51 View Postmesa desperately needs someone with deep pockets to back it up
<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
-
Originally posted by olbi View PostI 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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Delgarde View PostHint - 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: 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
-
Originally posted by Kivada View PostFun 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
Comment