Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Valve Developed An Intel Linux Vulkan GPU Driver

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

  • dragorth
    replied
    Originally posted by -MacNuke- View Post
    Any informations about how Gallium3D is useful for Vulkan?

    As far as I understand it, Gallium is a framework for "classic" graphic APIs. To build Vulkan on top of Gallium it had to read the SPIR-V code and transform it to its own IR so the driver can execute it...

    Sounds rather stupid to me. It would be more effective to put Vulkan under Gallium3D.
    First, an analogy.

    OpenGL is to Vulkan what Gallium3D is to SPIR-V.

    So, Gallium3D is not directly useful to Vulkan per se. However, SPIR-V is more useful than Gallium3D, in that since it is required to be supported by the spec, you won't run into Intel choosing not to support it, optimizing the SPIR-V compilers really will raise performance across the board.

    Indirectly, Gallium3D has a large number of optimizations for GPUs that could be used if someone wanted to write a SPIR-V backend. This would have the benefit of compiling existing GLSL, but I don't know if you would lose information in the transformation that SPIR-V took pains to keep for debugging purposes.

    Gallium is a framework for OpenGL APIs, not classic APIs. OpenGL will still be developed and used in the years to come.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by Ancurio View Post
    Is "sidestepped" such a loaded word? I never intended to criticize Intel for their decisions, nor did I imply Gallium was mature when Intel started. It wasn't just the work involved though, many Intel folks thought the Gallium architecture hadn't proved itself yet at the time.
    That was also almost 8 years ago. Even if their reasoning at that time made sense, it makes no sense at all today. They've had plenty of time to do something about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ancurio
    replied
    Originally posted by bakgwailo View Post
    That is some revisionist history right there. How did Intel sidestep Gallium? Intel already had a massive investment in the legacy Mesa driver styles before Gallium came out, looked at Gallium, and decided that it would be way too much work with little benefit to them to drop all of their (working very well) old driver code and port to Gallium. Seems fair to me, its not like they don't contribute a ton to Mesa/X anyways.
    Is "sidestepped" such a loaded word? I never intended to criticize Intel for their decisions, nor did I imply Gallium was mature when Intel started. It wasn't just the work involved though, many Intel folks thought the Gallium architecture hadn't proved itself yet at the time.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by newwen View Post
    Not likely, as Vulkan is not supported by older hardware
    The wine devs just need to pull their heads out of the sand and allow support for native apis when they are available. Period.

    Leave a comment:


  • newwen
    replied
    Originally posted by Kemosabe View Post
    And hopefully wine devs will replace their OGL wrapper with Vulkan
    Not likely, as Vulkan is not supported by older hardware

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    Intel builds new fabs on regular basis or upgrades em. That's how it works, you can not keep the fabs for long time. If AMD would ask Intel if they want to produce their chips it would be very interesting, especially for GF...

    Leave a comment:


  • dungeon
    replied
    Originally posted by Kano View Post
    You forget 10000 ppl at Globalfoundaries and and lots at TSMC as AMD was splitted and Nvidia never had own fabs. So you compare apples with oranges. Comparing AMD to Nvidia might be better. I don't know if it is funny or not as AMD and Nvidia both compete for being the first TSMC client to get shrinked chips... TSMC will use 16 nm soon, GF seems to be stuck at 28 nm, Intel uses 22 and 14 nm currently.
    Honestly i don't care about that company called nvidia at all for so many years now , it actually does not exist for me really So i don't ever even think about nvidia, as i don't want to be stuck with their blobs, etc...

    Yep that is, i don't even think about it and their products. I heard sometimes something about of course, but those does not exist for me I might buy something from AMD or Intel, but nvidia - no... even if tegra really sounds interesting to me.
    Last edited by dungeon; 06 March 2015, 08:28 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Drago
    replied
    Originally posted by Kano View Post
    You forget 10000 ppl at Globalfoundaries and and lots at TSMC as AMD was splitted and Nvidia never had own fabs. So you compare apples with oranges. Comparing AMD to Nvidia might be better. I don't know if it is funny or not as AMD and Nvidia both compete for being the first TSMC client to get shrinked chips... TSMC will use 16 nm soon, GF seems to be stuck at 28 nm, Intel uses 22 and 14 nm currently.
    They are not getting stuck, there is no point to continue upgrading. Chip factories cost shit load of money: $5-10B. At these costs owning a fab just for you is stupid. Even Intel started producing other companies chips in their fabs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    You forget 10000 ppl at Globalfoundaries and and lots at TSMC as AMD was splitted and Nvidia never had own fabs. So you compare apples with oranges. Comparing AMD to Nvidia might be better. I don't know if it is funny or not as AMD and Nvidia both compete for being the first TSMC client to get shrinked chips... TSMC will use 16 nm soon, GF seems to be stuck at 28 nm, Intel uses 22 and 14 nm currently.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    Originally posted by Blahblah View Post
    Wow; Valve really does not let anything get in their way, do they?
    *cough* The number 3 *cough*

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X