OpenGL 3.0 Features For Intel Ironlake Unlikely

[DanL]

Intel might not want to support OpenGL 3.x on this chipset, but they should definitely support full VA-API capabilities on Ironlake. Do they? People with this chip aren't hardcore gamers and video playback is far more important than 3D/gaming capability.

[AJenbo]

Generation before Ironlake has 2.0 under Windows and 2.1 under Linux. The one before that it's 1.5 on Windows and 1.4 on Linux.

[smitty3268]

DX 10, GL 2.1 according to wiki.

The windows driver team for Intel is infamous for not supporting all the features of their hardware. Even on DX, but especially on OpenGL.

[AJenbo]

Never actually seen anyone from Intel confirming that any DX10 capable gpu is also capable of OpenGL 3.3 (or any other OpenGL for that matter). Same for DX11 capable hardware. Best "confirmation" we have now is OpenGL versions supported by Windows driver (OpenGL 4.0 for DX11 hardware).

Oh! Can anyone check with Ironlake hw, what OpenGL is supported by Intel drivers on Windows? (Or even better, which OpenGL extensions are supported)

DX 10, GL 2.1 according to wiki.

[Marc Driftmeyer]

While theoretically true, i'm not sure it is in practice.

Most apps didn't use GL 3 to achieve the same effects that they did in 2.1. They used it to add new effects, which took more power.

Most apps? Hell, until Window Managers use OpenGL 2.x as a baseline or 3.x as a baseline of course most apps won't use it. Linux has been way behind the curve on a system-wide OpenGL 3.x environment, not to mention until very recently a 2.x environment. Only games were leveraging such advances and a few scientific applications.

Intel has a lot to worry about as the world converges CPU with GPU. They are definitely way behind in this area and will continue to be so.

People were whining about OS X not having OpenGL 4.x conformance and not realizing they are the only desktop that is through and through OpenGL 3.2 already. It's rather obvious the 4.x stack will be prime for OS X 10.9. Meanwhile, the billions poured into Linux are all about server side advances to serve the likes of Oracle, RedHat, IBM, Intel, etc.

The client part of client-server model seems to have been an after thought.

[przemoli]

Ironlake was designed to be DirectX 10 compatible, so I assume it is fully capable of OpenGL 3.3, and GLES 3.

But I suppose there could be some particular extension it can't handle.

Of course, as Michael noted, being capable of GL 3.3 features doesn't mean that those features would be very useful. It's slow enough just doing the older simpler games it can run now.

Never actually seen anyone from Intel confirming that any DX10 capable gpu is also capable of OpenGL 3.3 (or any other OpenGL for that matter). Same for DX11 capable hardware. Best "confirmation" we have now is OpenGL versions supported by Windows driver (OpenGL 4.0 for DX11 hardware).

Oh! Can anyone check with Ironlake hw, what OpenGL is supported by Intel drivers on Windows? (Or even better, which OpenGL extensions are supported)

[przemoli]

That again remaind me that Intel have 2 OpenGL gpu drivers.

Anyone know why Intel wont opensource Windows OpenGL effords? Having 2 sets of drivers only make targeting Intel a bit harder since it mean 2 sets of driver specific bugs... Not to meantion that it also mean reinventing wheel for each and every OpenGL feature.

And OpenGL implementation should not have anything to do with issues that can enrange MS (eg. It is not used in any capacity for DRM, do not contain secred and sacred knowlege about DirectX3D, ...).
So what is rationale?

In fact even if Win OpenGL implementation is closly coupled in MS gpu driver architecture, and could not be ported, opening source would be nice way to provide additional documentation for Linux drivers. And at least GLSL compiler should be "quite" easy to port.

[smitty3268]

OpenGL 3.x is more effective than 2.1. So games running OpenGL 3.x to acheave same effects as 2.1 should be faster. (Dunno how mesa have it. 2.1 is longer around so may be more optimized..)

While theoretically true, i'm not sure it is in practice.

Most apps didn't use GL 3 to achieve the same effects that they did in 2.1. They used it to add new effects, which took more power.

[przemoli]

Ironlake was designed to be DirectX 10 compatible, so I assume it is fully capable of OpenGL 3.3, and GLES 3.

But I suppose there could be some particular extension it can't handle.

Of course, as Michael noted, being capable of GL 3.3 features doesn't mean that those features would be very useful. It's slow enough just doing the older simpler games it can run now.

OpenGL 3.x is more effective than 2.1. So games running OpenGL 3.x to acheave same effects as 2.1 should be faster. (Dunno how mesa have it. 2.1 is longer around so may be more optimized..)

[smitty3268]

Anyone knows which opengl extension Ironlake could support?

Edit:
And I just love how AMD/Intel started to put more emphasis on "docs are here, code is flos, what do you wait for? CODE!"

Ironlake was designed to be DirectX 10 compatible, so I assume it is fully capable of OpenGL 3.3, and GLES 3.

But I suppose there could be some particular extension it can't handle.

Of course, as Michael noted, being capable of GL 3.3 features doesn't mean that those features would be very useful. It's slow enough just doing the older simpler games it can run now.