| |||||||||||||
LCA: Two talks on the state of XLCA: Two talks on the state of XPosted Feb 8, 2008 20:57 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333)In reply to: LCA: Two talks on the state of X by flewellyn Parent article: LCA: Two talks on the state of X
Gallium3D should help with that, I believe. It's a very nice idea, at least. Should support all OSes, including Windows if you really want it to. http://www.tungstengraphics.com/gallium3D.htm It should reduce complexity for drivers and thus the OS-specific stuff will be easier to make.
(Log in to post comments)
LCA: Two talks on the state of X Posted Feb 9, 2008 6:26 UTC (Sat) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] Well, I guess it's true: you can always add another layer of indirection...
LCA: Two talks on the state of X Posted Feb 9, 2008 17:57 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Especially when it makes sense.. like making it easier to write simpler drivers that are as effective as the old ones. (and making that code more portable) Or making it possible to support APIs other then just OpenGL. Or making it easier for programmers to utilize the GPU for things other then just making games go fast. The thing is is that the video card is no longer just useful for accelerating 3D rendering or making movie playback smooth. The GPU is more and more a co-processor for your computer then anything else. A GPU has a massive amount of floating point performance and it usually has a fat wad of memory that has a extraordinary amount of bandwidth between it and the GPU. For certain tasks a 300 dollar video card can blow away a cluster of x86 machines.
LCA: Two talks on the state of X Posted Feb 10, 2008 2:47 UTC (Sun) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] This is true. I've read about projects to use the GPU's vector processing for general purpose computing. It's interesting, but it has me wondering when the vendors are going to realize the inefficiency of having two powerful but dissimilar processors on the machine, and fold GPU functions back into the CPU. IBM's Cell architecture may well be an example of this already. But as far as what you pointed to, I'm a little bit worried about the attempts to cover over differences between OpenGL and D3D. The only reason I'm worried is because, of course, D3D is a moving target, and one for which Microsoft has every reason NOT to cooperate with portability efforts.
LCA: Two talks on the state of X Posted Feb 10, 2008 17:27 UTC (Sun) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] It's interesting, but it has me wondering when the vendors are going to realize the inefficiency of having two powerful but dissimilar processors on the machine, and fold GPU functions back into the CPU. IBM's Cell architecture may well be an example of this already. This has been going on for decades... see Sutherland's wheel of reincarnation.
LCA: Two talks on the state of X Posted Feb 10, 2008 22:40 UTC (Sun) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] Oh, indeed. That's why I brought it up.
LCA: Two talks on the state of X Posted Feb 11, 2008 14:08 UTC (Mon) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link] Is that such a problem, given that mode setting is definitely not performance critical?
LCA: Two talks on the state of X Posted Feb 12, 2008 19:22 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] It has nothing to don with being performance-critical, and everything to do with low-level hardware interaction. The Unix philosophy is to have the kernel do all direct hardware interaction.
LCA: Two talks on the state of X Posted Feb 13, 2008 14:19 UTC (Wed) by daenzer (✭ supporter ✭, #7050) [Link] > It should reduce complexity for drivers and thus the OS-specific stuff will > be easier to make. True, but Gallium3D doesn't really have anything to do with modesetting.
|
|||||||||||||