Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenGL 4.0 Patches For Intel Ivy Bridge Revised

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by tuxayo View Post
    It wasn't bullshit, it's legitimate to question why a company would fund work on previous gens hardware.
    Would you rather us not?

    Because lots of people complain about lack of X, Y, or Z on much older and less capable hardware than Ivybridge.

    The legitimate answer is that we feel it's the right thing to do. The hardware is capable, and given the relatively small amount of work to support IVB (~25 patches) on top of the hundreds of patches it's taken to support HSW and BDW+, why not do something nice for the customers who we want to trust us to do right by them.

    Maybe just stop complaining about every little thing and thank the people that spend enormous amounts of time and effort on this stuff... just occasionally?

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by mattst88 View Post
      Maybe just stop complaining about every little thing and thank the people that spend enormous amounts of time and effort on this stuff... just occasionally?
      Indeed, thank you for improving the graphics drivers for my nice little ultrabook!

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by MoonMoon View Post

        Indeed, thank you for improving the graphics drivers for my nice little ultrabook!
        cRaZy-bisCuiT did not complain.
        Read again.
        He asked a question. Questions should be treated as something good because they show that the questioner wants to know more. However his question here is treated as a "stupid" question and it is even interpreted as a complain.
        Sad.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by mattst88 View Post

          It amazes me that no matter what the news, there is someone who thinks it's stupid. Enable GL 4.x on Broadwell/Skylake? People complain that Haswell/Ivybridge aren't included. Enable GL 4.x on Haswell/Ivybridge? People think it's a waste of time. It's pretty demotivating reading the Phoronix forums.

          We expect Ivybridge to support at least GL 4.2. Some amount of work remains to be done for GL_ARB_stencil_texturing and GL 4.3. Some amount of work on GL_ARB_query_buffer_object and GL_ARB_texture_stencil8 would get Ivybridge all the way to GL 4.5.
          So you are one of the developers then? Sorry to go a bit off topic but I'm curious as to what the hardware looks like internally, sort of. I have imagined that the hardware more or less implements a fairly rigid graphics pipeline internally and the drivers more or less is a translation layer between the API calls and the internal hardware model but your explanation here makes me think that it's much more of a general processor that just have some features suitable for graphics work. Would it be possible at least in theory to implement a completely different graphics API/model in this hardware? I.e. not DirectX or OpenGL but a third model? I mean for example the current OpenGL model has the vertex shader, tesselation shader(s), geometry shader, pixel shader and then the raster output thingie. Do these units have some dedicated space in hardware or is it only a matter of firmware?

          Comment


          • #25
            Yes, I work for Intel on the i965 driver.

            There's a lot of dedicated (fixed-function) hardware. It's definitely designed for graphics.

            I guess you could implement anything using compute shaders, but there's a lot of silicon designed for specific pieces of the standard graphics pipeline.

            Comment


            • #26
              Ow, sorry for the double post, I was confused but the moderation when posting the first time and though it was lost. I wish I could delete the duplicate.

              Originally posted by mattst88 View Post

              Would you rather us not?
              Not at all, that's not what I meant. If you are involved with this, thanks a lot!

              Originally posted by mattst88 View Post
              Because lots of people complain about lack of X, Y, or Z on much older and less capable hardware than Ivybridge.
              This is great to see hardware still being used and the manufacturer listening to their customers

              Originally posted by mattst88 View Post
              The legitimate answer is that we feel it's the right thing to do. The hardware is capable, and given the relatively small amount of work to support IVB (~25 patches) on top of the hundreds of patches it's taken to support HSW and BDW+, why not do something nice for the customers who we want to trust us to do right by them.
              It awesome to see that such decisions can still be taken, thing like «we feel it's the right thing to do» seems quite rare and precious nowadays.

              Thanks for details!

              Originally posted by mattst88 View Post

              Maybe just stop complaining about every little thing and thank the people that spend enormous amounts of time and effort on this stuff... just occasionally?
              **What makes you think I was complaining?** I'm very happy about that (having an Ivy Bridge GPU) so sorry if my phrasing made you think that I though it was a bad thing. It's a very good surprise to see this effort and I was wondering why did we have this good surprise as it's unusual to see this.

              Comment

              Working...
              X