Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenGL 4.4 ARB_buffer_storage Comes To Radeon Gallium3D

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

  • OpenGL 4.4 ARB_buffer_storage Comes To Radeon Gallium3D

    Phoronix: OpenGL 4.4 ARB_buffer_storage Comes To Radeon Gallium3D

    The latest work by Marek Ol??k of AMD is implementing ARB_buffer_storage support within the R300, R600, and RadeonSI open-source AMD Linux graphics drivers...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTYxNTE

  • #2
    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: OpenGL 4.4 ARB_buffer_storage Comes To Radeon Gallium3D

    The latest work by Marek Ol??k of AMD is implementing ARB_buffer_storage support within the R300, R600, and RadeonSI open-source AMD Linux graphics drivers...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTYxNTE
    Huh? How is that possible? Even Catalyst only supports OpenGL 4.3. And Hardware support is also only up to 4.3 since HD 5000 series according to wikipedia. So is wikipedia wrong here or is this just implemented as a software accelerated feature?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by tomtomme View Post
      Huh? How is that possible? Even Catalyst only supports OpenGL 4.3. And Hardware support is also only up to 4.3 since HD 5000 series according to wikipedia. So is wikipedia wrong here or is this just implemented as a software accelerated feature?
      This is a driver feature, it doesn't depend on any special hardware.

      Also, AMD's hardware is fully capable of 4.4, their catalyst driver just hasn't gotten around to supporting it yet. They took about a year before they added 4.3 support as well.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by tomtomme View Post
        Huh? How is that possible? Even Catalyst only supports OpenGL 4.3. And Hardware support is also only up to 4.3 since HD 5000 series according to wikipedia. So is wikipedia wrong here or is this just implemented as a software accelerated feature?
        EVERYBODY advertise lesser number of the two: what hardware is capable of, what software is capable of.

        That is why You will see Intel GPU's listed as capable of OpenGL 3.3, and DX11

        Comment


        • #5
          So is wikipedia wrong here or is this just implemented as a software accelerated feature?
          I guess this particular extension doesn't require special hardware support, or Marek wouldn't have implemented it in r300 driver, since those cards only support OpenGL 2.x

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
            This is a driver feature, it doesn't depend on any special hardware.

            Also, AMD's hardware is fully capable of 4.4, their catalyst driver just hasn't gotten around to supporting it yet. They took about a year before they added 4.3 support as well.
            It took NVIDIA two weeks to bring out a new beta driver with 4.4 support just for comparison.

            Comment


            • #7
              Just because a certain class of hardware cannot support a GL version, doesn't mean it cannot implement parts of it. Case in point: many OpenGL 2.0 class cards offer framebuffer object (offscreen rendering) support, which is only became core in GL 3.0 (in fact my engine relies on it, and thus I can state the minimum version as "2.0").

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by blackout23 View Post
                It took NVIDIA two weeks to bring out a new beta driver with 4.4 support just for comparison.
                They can't implement it in few weeks. I pretty sure Nvidia starting implementation of newer GL version many months before Khronos release final version of specification. Why AMD don't do the same it's other question.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by _SXX_ View Post
                  They can't implement it in few weeks. I pretty sure Nvidia starting implementation of newer GL version many months before Khronos release final version of specification. Why AMD don't do the same it's other question.
                  Maybe they don't blindly trust that Khronos will release the final version exactly the same as the draft one (or release it at all to begin with)?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                    Maybe they don't blindly trust that Khronos will release the final version exactly the same as the draft one (or release it at all to begin with)?
                    Khronos it's industry consortium and both AMD and Nvidia (as long as other vendors) contribute to specification. So they all know which parts of specification is final and which can be changed.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X