Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD's opensource lies exposed

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

  • Originally posted by popper View Post
    to get a viable GL4 you/mesa would need to officially draw the line as of today and set a DX10.1* capable hardware as your minimum spec for that would you not!
    by viable i mean OC in hardware not just software emulation of DX10.1 capability's.

    and OC that means not just writing C code/assembly for x86 DX10.1 but for ARM cortex/NEON/Mali etc too that have that capability.



    *http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/24...0-dx10-missing
    "The DX 10.1 SDK only recently was made available, and by the time supporting hardware and DX10.1 are released to end users somewhere in the first half of 2008, SP1 should be readily available.

    What are the changes? DX 10.1's goals are to offer the "complete" DX 10, giving developers better control over image quality and making mandatory some of the things that are optional in DX 10.

    For example, 32-bit floating point filtering is optional in DX10 (16-bit FP filtering is mandatory), but will be mandatory in DX 10.1. Also, in DX 10, the number of multisample anti-aliasing samples is optional?DX 10.1 will make 4x AA mandatory, and require two specific sample patterns.

    Graphics cards can offer more sample patterns, and developers can query them in their shaders. Graphics cards that are DX 10.1 compliant will have to offer programmable shader output sample masks and multisample AA depth readback. Game developers will be able to index into cube maps and perform bitwise copies from uncompressed textures to block-compressed texture formats. "
    why only 10.1 hardware for openGL4 ? why not dx11 hardware ?

    in the past i always think openGL4 is the counter part of dx11 ?

    is there no tesselation in openGL4 ?
    Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
      is there no tesselation in openGL4 ?
      Uhm... only in opengl 4.1 as far as I know.
      ## VGA ##
      AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
      Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

      Comment


      • GL4 requires DX11 hardware.
        GL3 requires DX10.1 hardware.
        GL2.1 requires DX9(*) hardware.

        (GL2.1 defines some features that are not available in all DX9 cards).

        Tessellation is available in OpenGL 4.0 core.

        From now on, we will probably see a major OpenGL revision for each major DX version, i.e. GL5 for DX12 and so on. This makes sense for everyone: hardware manufacturers, developers and end-users.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
          An adgf5 centerfold?
          Leopard thongs FTW!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
            GL4 requires DX11 hardware.
            GL3 requires DX10.1 hardware.
            GL2.1 requires DX9(*) hardware.

            (GL2.1 defines some features that are not available in all DX9 cards).

            Tessellation is available in OpenGL 4.0 core.

            From now on, we will probably see a major OpenGL revision for each major DX version, i.e. GL5 for DX12 and so on. This makes sense for everyone: hardware manufacturers, developers and end-users.
            sure thats it... he is just wrong ...
            Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

            Comment


            • Originally Posted by BlackStar
              GL4 requires DX11 hardware.
              GL3 requires DX10.1 hardware.
              GL2.1 requires DX9(*) hardware.

              (GL2.1 defines some features that are not available in all DX9 cards).

              Tessellation is available in OpenGL 4.0 core.

              From now on, we will probably see a major OpenGL revision for each major DX version, i.e. GL5 for DX12 and so on. This makes sense for everyone: hardware manufacturers, developers and end-users.
              Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
              sure thats it... he is just wrong ...
              what do You mean "just wrong" !, sure i forgot about Tessellation but then im human so it's inevitable i suppose , im sure you forget obscure things too ?

              by obscure im sure your aware it seems as of today that Tessellation usage is used by perhaps 2 or 3 windows games at most and the odd obscure workstation option in their app's id imagine too!, and those that did try it so far ended up turning it off to get responsiveness back, as Tessellation slowed their hardware right down.

              but skip that slowdown for the moment, lets not forget i said 'set a DX10.1* capable hardware as your minimum spec' the reason is simple , you mentioned why not set DX11 so you want them to set that as the minimum spec today ?

              how realistic is it do you think that mesa would actually set that DX11 basline requirement today and actually write code to that DX11 hardware spec when Intel currently only does 10.1 at most ?, or arm dev's using a similar X10.1 spec until mali 6 arrives on mass ,and AMD wanting to try and support at least base 10.1 spec (as they officially drop 9.0c card by card support bit by bit today in their closed driver etc)

              as i said 'setting a DX10.1* capable hardware as your minimum spec' today seems far more reasonable dont you agree ?

              sure, writing a few software emulation for the few missing hardware options (or whatever term you want to call it) would probably be required, but what's the alternative, support dx9.0c forever and never get full GL3 or partial GL4 in mesa Linux/OSS for cards that can do/come close to it ? what would you suggest then as the alternative as of today?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by popper View Post
                what's the alternative, support dx9.0c forever and never get full GL3 or partial GL4 in mesa Linux/OSS for cards that can do/come close to it ? what would you suggest then as the alternative as of today?
                There is no alternative, because dropping support for DX9 GPUs is simply not on the table. In general, GPUs become unsupported once no dev owns them, or wishes to support them, anymore.

                Comment


                • This post seems to be written by a Fox News reader... (ironic)

                  Originally posted by glxextxexlg View Post
                  The famous argument of AMD spec fanboys is that AMD will allways go on with providing full specs for their hardware while binary blob support can eventually break. In fact the truth is the opposite of it. It appears that the false opensource prophecy can break any time soon:

                  http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00..._cost.html#oss

                  From that text:


                  Will opensource "drivers" from AMD support OpenGL 3x/4x and video acceleration in the future? Given the patented floating point support in OGL 3 and s3tc and these DRM arrangements, I've my doubts.
                  So amd linux users will have half-baked featureless opensource drivers when amd will drop binary driver support for r600/r700 hardware and another waiting period will start for these people to be able to play OilRush.

                  Wake up.
                  Well, I'm a bit late in this thread but... personally, I think this post deserves a place in FailBlog, or, even better, in a "Phoronix Forum's Hall of Fame"...

                  About most of the things you put there, think twice about it.
                  Are these problems with OS AMD drivers AMD's FAULT?!
                  I don't think so. From what I know, most of them are patent-related (IP) ones. The remaining are HR. (there aren't too many dedicated professional driver programmers for Linux Graphics Hardware... )
                  Summarizing, I think you're being unfair with AMD's efforts to allow system interoperability. The effort they've been doing in the latest 2/3 years has been awesome, at least.

                  Cheers

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by popper View Post
                    what do You mean "just wrong" !, sure i forgot about Tessellation but then im human so it's inevitable i suppose , im sure you forget obscure things too ?

                    by obscure im sure your aware it seems as of today that Tessellation usage is used by perhaps 2 or 3 windows games at most and the odd obscure workstation option in their app's id imagine too!, and those that did try it so far ended up turning it off to get responsiveness back, as Tessellation slowed their hardware right down.

                    but skip that slowdown for the moment, lets not forget i said 'set a DX10.1* capable hardware as your minimum spec' the reason is simple , you mentioned why not set DX11 so you want them to set that as the minimum spec today ?

                    how realistic is it do you think that mesa would actually set that DX11 basline requirement today and actually write code to that DX11 hardware spec when Intel currently only does 10.1 at most ?, or arm dev's using a similar X10.1 spec until mali 6 arrives on mass ,and AMD wanting to try and support at least base 10.1 spec (as they officially drop 9.0c card by card support bit by bit today in their closed driver etc)

                    as i said 'setting a DX10.1* capable hardware as your minimum spec' today seems far more reasonable dont you agree ?

                    sure, writing a few software emulation for the few missing hardware options (or whatever term you want to call it) would probably be required, but what's the alternative, support dx9.0c forever and never get full GL3 or partial GL4 in mesa Linux/OSS for cards that can do/come close to it ? what would you suggest then as the alternative as of today?
                    ok sorry for my hard words. yes i do agree but you will not see this until 2012 or 2013.

                    and maybe yes dx10 hardware isn't good for linux maybe 10.1 is really better.
                    Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by glxextxexlg View Post
                      AMD dropped support for r300 - r500 hardware in early 2009 and they left development of the open drivers to independent developers like marek olsak and corbin simpson. It took them a very long time and tremendous amounts of unpaid hard work to make r300g an OK driver (...)
                      Which proves all the information is out there, it just takes lots of manpower to implement it. AMD said they'd release docs and they did. AMD said they'd help with developers and they do.

                      They never promised a team the same size as the closed source drivers. They never promised to write all features the community couldn't keep up with. They never promised to fix the whole open source graphics stack.

                      True, there's a few tidbits they can't give out. But at least 90% of the missing features are due to lack of manpower. Much of the UVD functionality could be done in shaders, if there was manpower. OpenGL 3/4 support lacks lots of manpower. Hell, if there was a surplus you could have some do reverse engineering projects.

                      It's the open source community that doesn't have enough people, not AMD. AMD didn't start this project so they could make another set of drivers 100% written by themselves, only open source. For years the community said "give us specs" and when they did people like you come and say "oh, and write the driver for us too".

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X