Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ATI Gallium3D + Wine Is Bettered A Bit

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

  • NSLW
    replied
    Thanks for reliable answer. I hope you developers will enable it again soon.

    Leave a comment:


  • marek
    replied
    Originally posted by NSLW View Post
    I've got R500 and Fedora 14 installed (Gallium 0.4, Mesa 7.9). When I type glxinfo in terminal, there isn't any GL_ARB_depth_clamp listed.

    Here http://www.mesa3d.org/relnotes-7.9.html It is mentioned that

    GL_ARB_depth_clamp and GL_NV_depth_clamp extensions (in nv50 and r600 Gallium drivers)

    So there is nothing about r300.

    Does anybody have GL_ARB_depth_clamp available on his R500 hardware?
    We had to disable it because it caused issues.

    Leave a comment:


  • NSLW
    replied
    I've got R500 and Fedora 14 installed (Gallium 0.4, Mesa 7.9). When I type glxinfo in terminal, there isn't any GL_ARB_depth_clamp listed.

    Here http://www.mesa3d.org/relnotes-7.9.html It is mentioned that

    GL_ARB_depth_clamp and GL_NV_depth_clamp extensions (in nv50 and r600 Gallium drivers)

    So there is nothing about r300.

    Does anybody have GL_ARB_depth_clamp available on his R500 hardware?

    Leave a comment:


  • yoshi314
    replied
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    IMO it's Wine's fault; since when is it good behavior of an app to depend on a particular compiler optimization?
    you should compare amount and type of bugs reported with wine+nvidia blob to bugs reported on wine+mesa. and compare wine compatibility when running different graphics hardware.

    it's not a surprise that wine works better with nvidia driver or catalyst. the driver issue is very important here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ex-Cyber
    replied
    Originally posted by brent View Post
    Actually I think stabilizing the current level of support (OpenGL 2.1) and improving performance is more important than full support for OpenGL 4.0 on paper.
    I don't see how that's even an actual choice. Gallium3D moves us toward a lot more than "OpenGL 4.0 on paper". Stability should improve with better factoring of GPU driver vs. memory management vs. API code. Performance should improve as these components are optimized. We probably could have had better performance today if everyone was still hacking at classic Mesa drivers, but then we'd probably have been stuck there for another 5 years, watching GPUs and games/apps advance while we sit around comparing Doom 3 framerates.

    Leave a comment:


  • V!NCENT
    replied
    Originally posted by brent View Post
    Actually I think stabilizing the current level of support (OpenGL 2.1) and improving performance is more important than full support for OpenGL 4.0 on paper.
    I disagree. Performance is improving anyway. Linux/BSD/Haiku need to be on the forfront of technology in order to stand above of Mac OS X and Windows in way or the other. Literaly last time I checked, Snow Leopart still had OpenGL 2.1. Imagine your favo OS is graphicaly more advanced than the Mac...

    Leave a comment:


  • Prescience500
    replied
    The more advanced Gallium3d is the more likely that Intel will switch their drivers over to it. That would provide a nice increase in economies of scale.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    IMO it's Wine's fault; since when is it good behavior of an app to depend on a particular compiler optimization?

    Leave a comment:


  • pingufunkybeat
    replied
    Agreed, but one does not preclude the other.

    Especially since r300g can't do higher than 2.1 anyway, as the hardware does not support it.

    Also, many extensions need general Mesa work, which is shared between all drivers.

    Leave a comment:


  • brent
    replied
    Actually I think stabilizing the current level of support (OpenGL 2.1) and improving performance is more important than full support for OpenGL 4.0 on paper.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X