Originally posted by haagch
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
AMD Is Still Moving Towards A Unified Open-Source Driver
Collapse
X
-
-
But what about multiple GPUs with different OpenGL version support and OpenGL extension support? You'd always be restricted to the lowest common features...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Ancurio View PostI recall a Mesa developer mentioning that crossfire support has already been possible with open source drivers for a long time, just that nobody has stepped up to do the hard work (coding). But AFAIK there are no proprietary / unknown bits that inherently prevent an open source implementation.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostI seriously hope this means crossfire support. I just installed catalyst for the first time in about year yesterday and crossfire currently only works on the Heaven benchmark, and even at that it performs horribly. Crossfire is the only reason I switched to catalyst in the first place, and the lack of crossfire is the one thing preventing me from playing some games at 60+FPS at high(er) detail settings.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by bibaheu View PostThis might bring CrossFire to Mesa... Imagine "CrossFire" with totally different GPUs using Mesa, it would totally rock.
Leave a comment:
-
Nice idea, but...
Nice idea, but ideally I can wish them not to stop half way and consider opensource driver as primary target at Linux, just as Intel did. But still, nice idea since it is kernel module what is attrubuted to most Linux troubles.
Leave a comment:
-
Reason for wanting OpenGL 4.4 is AZDO.
But here is the catch... If You do not need tesselation? Mesa will have AZDO faster then OpenGL 4.4
After all AZDO is "just" a bunch of extensions, and Mesa is famous for cherry picking which ext. gets support next
So OpenGL 3.3 + few extra extensions should do the trick (Or 4.0 + few extensions if tessel is necessary!)
"I MUSTA HAVEA 4.4" is relict of monolithic proprietary drivers, where company politics dictate gradual development (no 4.4 before 4.3 is finished, no 4.3 before 4.2 is finished, and oh that hw wont get 3.2 .. because!)
And "I MUST HAVEA Compatibility Profile" is another sad example.
(Thankfully, Mesa allow for overriding both supported version and supported profile... And then some software just magically start to work :P )
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by sunweb View PostActually all hardware that supports OpenGL 3.3 supports OpenGL up to 4.4 with proprietary drivers from AMD, Nvidia and Intel(on Windows for now). Something that doesn't support it is realy old hardware already and in 2017 not many gamers will have such and even OSS drivers will have support of it. So if someone would like to create modern and powerful engine that it should be ok. Ofcourse "powerful" engine doesn't sound nice when you have 1 developer but its his choice anyway.
The debate is a little silly, though. If you spend $8M dollars developing a game, most of that will be graphics artists. You can afford to pay a dev for 6 months to produce "a lower quality graphics engine" that will work on Windows Vista era graphics cards (== OpenGL 3.3). If that is pushing your budget, realistically you'll not support Linux long before you don't support people on Windows XP...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by RahulSundaram View PostNobody at this point would develop any game or engine which has 4.4 as the minimum version.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: