Slashdot Mirror

Oh, you make it sound so easy ;-)

What about turning the last 20 years of hardware graphics acceleration on its head by introducing a *programmable* graphics pipeline? It's never been done before, and it changes everything. OpenGL is being totally redesigned from the ground up to cope with this huge shift in the rendering paradigm. This is the biggest thing since Renderman. I'd call it revolutionary.

Imagine if instead, the developer handed the graphics card a mathematical description of the model, and the chip did the rest, filling in details based on fractal algorithms.

What, like these hardware mandelbrots, rendered entirely by the GPU? Or this Game of Life? Water simulation, Perlin noise, grass, prodecural 3D noise, particle systems, all rendered by programmable vertex & pixel shaders on the GPU. Plus fire, fur, toon shading, silhouettes... Of course, this is only what a few people have thought of so far, on some first-generation hardware.

That would be revolutionary, and would require incredible engineering to design.

Hmm. Maybe so.

Oh, you make it sound so easy ;-)

What about turning the last 20 years of hardware graphics acceleration on its head by introducing a *programmable* graphics pipeline? It's never been done before, and it changes everything. OpenGL is being totally redesigned from the ground up to cope with this huge shift in the rendering paradigm. This is the biggest thing since Renderman. I'd call it revolutionary.

Imagine if instead, the developer handed the graphics card a mathematical description of the model, and the chip did the rest, filling in details based on fractal algorithms.

What, like these hardware mandelbrots, rendered entirely by the GPU? Or this Game of Life? Water simulation, Perlin noise, grass, prodecural 3D noise, particle systems, all rendered by programmable vertex & pixel shaders on the GPU. Plus fire, fur, toon shading, silhouettes... Of course, this is only what a few people have thought of so far, on some first-generation hardware.

That would be revolutionary, and would require incredible engineering to design.

Hmm. Maybe so.

Oh, you make it sound so easy ;-)

What about turning the last 20 years of hardware graphics acceleration on its head by introducing a *programmable* graphics pipeline? It's never been done before, and it changes everything. OpenGL is being totally redesigned from the ground up to cope with this huge shift in the rendering paradigm. This is the biggest thing since Renderman. I'd call it revolutionary.

Imagine if instead, the developer handed the graphics card a mathematical description of the model, and the chip did the rest, filling in details based on fractal algorithms.

What, like these hardware mandelbrots, rendered entirely by the GPU? Or this Game of Life? Water simulation, Perlin noise, grass, prodecural 3D noise, particle systems, all rendered by programmable vertex & pixel shaders on the GPU. Plus fire, fur, toon shading, silhouettes... Of course, this is only what a few people have thought of so far, on some first-generation hardware.

That would be revolutionary, and would require incredible engineering to design.

Hmm. Maybe so.

Oh, you make it sound so easy ;-)

What about turning the last 20 years of hardware graphics acceleration on its head by introducing a *programmable* graphics pipeline? It's never been done before, and it changes everything. OpenGL is being totally redesigned from the ground up to cope with this huge shift in the rendering paradigm. This is the biggest thing since Renderman. I'd call it revolutionary.

Imagine if instead, the developer handed the graphics card a mathematical description of the model, and the chip did the rest, filling in details based on fractal algorithms.

What, like these hardware mandelbrots, rendered entirely by the GPU? Or this Game of Life? Water simulation, Perlin noise, grass, prodecural 3D noise, particle systems, all rendered by programmable vertex & pixel shaders on the GPU. Plus fire, fur, toon shading, silhouettes... Of course, this is only what a few people have thought of so far, on some first-generation hardware.

That would be revolutionary, and would require incredible engineering to design.

Hmm. Maybe so.

Oh, you make it sound so easy ;-)

What about turning the last 20 years of hardware graphics acceleration on its head by introducing a *programmable* graphics pipeline? It's never been done before, and it changes everything. OpenGL is being totally redesigned from the ground up to cope with this huge shift in the rendering paradigm. This is the biggest thing since Renderman. I'd call it revolutionary.

Imagine if instead, the developer handed the graphics card a mathematical description of the model, and the chip did the rest, filling in details based on fractal algorithms.

What, like these hardware mandelbrots, rendered entirely by the GPU? Or this Game of Life? Water simulation, Perlin noise, grass, prodecural 3D noise, particle systems, all rendered by programmable vertex & pixel shaders on the GPU. Plus fire, fur, toon shading, silhouettes... Of course, this is only what a few people have thought of so far, on some first-generation hardware.

That would be revolutionary, and would require incredible engineering to design.

Hmm. Maybe so.

Oh, you make it sound so easy ;-)

What about turning the last 20 years of hardware graphics acceleration on its head by introducing a *programmable* graphics pipeline? It's never been done before, and it changes everything. OpenGL is being totally redesigned from the ground up to cope with this huge shift in the rendering paradigm. This is the biggest thing since Renderman. I'd call it revolutionary.

Imagine if instead, the developer handed the graphics card a mathematical description of the model, and the chip did the rest, filling in details based on fractal algorithms.

What, like these hardware mandelbrots, rendered entirely by the GPU? Or this Game of Life? Water simulation, Perlin noise, grass, prodecural 3D noise, particle systems, all rendered by programmable vertex & pixel shaders on the GPU. Plus fire, fur, toon shading, silhouettes... Of course, this is only what a few people have thought of so far, on some first-generation hardware.

That would be revolutionary, and would require incredible engineering to design.

Hmm. Maybe so.

Bad idea. Too much of that already. The release notes for NVidia's drivers now require a 6.62 megabyte PDF file. 154 pages of manual. For a driver. And that's a document for end users, not programmers.

Suppose you copy at full PCI bus speed

You can cut a few years off that figure with AGP storage. Because most servers don't need excessive video performance, such systems can use an el-cheapo video card sitting on the PCI bus, leaving the AGP port open. Storage makers have developed high-speed storage solutions that take advantage of the insane throughput of AGP (1 GB/s and beyond).

If your manufacturer doesn't have drivers for xp, go to nvidia.com and download the latest detonator drivers. It's the same set of drivers for all cards with the nvidia chipset from tnt to geforce 3.

download

You forgot kernel version conflicts :-P

Esp. important when looking at something like... Mandrake 8.1 and a GeForce2 MX. Sure it is "supported" under Mandrake 8.1, unless you want to play Q3A, then it is time to get the drivers from
Nvidia, which require an older version of the kernel... oops!

So am I supposed to wait...?

Personally I'll continue to use ATI graphics cards because of their excellent Linux driver support (unlike other graphics card manufacturers who release binary-only drivers.

It feels like an "unaccelerated SVGA driver" because it is. The nv driver that comes with XFree86 performs no hardware acceleration at all. You should be using NVidia's accelerated drivers from http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?PAGE=linux. Yes, they are closed source, but at least they exist, unlike drivers from many other manufacturers.

It comes with an nVidia remote, which is such a cool feature. Unfortunately, according to this TV Tuner Video Card Roundup from AnandTech, the PVR software included with the ATI All In Wonder board is a lot better than nVidia's.

There is a lot of visualization research happening at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory that's using Linux. A lot of the boxes that we do our day-to-day work on are boxes running RedHat 7.1. We're researching how to best use the latest nVidia drivers with GeForce 3 cards.

I've personally been working on scalable parallel rendering. We have a couple Linux clusters that we're working with. The one that I work on is a 32-node cluster with a Myrinet interconnect. Each box has hardware graphics in it. That cluster is hooked up to several displays so that we can explore very large tiled displays. I'm working on a project called Chromium that's hosted at SourceForge.

So I think you could say that the researchers in the DOE are very interested in what Linux can do.

There is a lot of visualization research happening at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory that's using Linux. A lot of the boxes that we do our day-to-day work on are boxes running RedHat 7.1. We're researching how to best use the latest nVidia drivers with GeForce 3 cards.

I've personally been working on scalable parallel rendering. We have a couple Linux clusters that we're working with. The one that I work on is a 32-node cluster with a Myrinet interconnect. Each box has hardware graphics in it. That cluster is hooked up to several displays so that we can explore very large tiled displays. I'm working on a project called Chromium that's hosted at SourceForge.

So I think you could say that the researchers in the DOE are very interested in what Linux can do.

Very slick! I wonder how this bodes for future MB chipset designs.

When you see what companies like nVidia are doing with chipsets like the nForce (i.e.: better then mediocre on-board graphics, very capable on-board audio, Ethernet etc, etc...) we may start seeing motherboards with surplus PCI slots.

Then I guess your friend has never had a GeForce2 GTS 32MB DDR, GeForce2 GTS 64MB DDR, GeForce2 Pro 64MB DDR, GeForce2 Ultra 64MB DDr, GeForce3 64MB DDR, ATi 7500 or ATi 8500, eh? GeForce2 MX on-board video on the nForce doesn't even match stand-alone GeForce2 MX-based boards performance. And that's with it pumped all the way to 32 megs in the BIOS.

From an earlier post of yours - " Working where he does (which I'm not going to say), he tends to get stuff a little earlier than the rest of the public..."

Bullshit. Working where I do, I can tell you these are not being produced until October at the earliest. What that means is that they don't exist in the consumer arena yet. You cannot buy them. The only way you can get one is from The Company, and suffice it to say, they are only giving them out to reviewers and those that are manufacturing boards based on their design. So unless your "friend" is Anand or one of a few other people that got them (or one of the people working at the plants in Taiwan), he doesn't have it. Period. This isn't software, where you can make a copy and give it to their friend while they can smirk because they're special and know an insider. A very limited number of nForce boards exist, and they have not reached the public yet (and will not until November, most likely).

Maybe you got confused. Or maybe you're lying. Either way, now is the time to suck it up and admit that your above post does not apply to any nForce-based motherboard.

Sure, it autodetected my GeForce2GTS...

Also, it detected my SBLive...

Check out this Nvidia page for a mirror of the Wolfenstein download.

- [grunby]

How about DUAL DDR channels?? (Plus HyperTransport plus Dolby 5.1, plus...) Anyone know when the nForce is supposed to be released? I haven't heard much about this chipset since June...

You could be much more conservative and still get a computer with better specs and in the same price range as the $299 Xbox.

That's part of the problem with consoles... They become obsoleted before they even hit the market. For example, the Xbox (which hasn't even been released yet) is supposed to run a 733MHZ P3, but Intel already has a 1.8GHZ P4 out in stores. The Xbox is supposed to contain an 8G hard drive, but 40G hard drives have been available cheaply for quite some time now. The Xbox graphics chipset also falls behind chipsets like the GeForce 3 and the Radeon 8500.

The real question is: Why would anyone want to spend so much for a cheap PC? (When most Americans already own one of those). It seems like most developers will use DirectX, so all of the games will be immediately 'ported' to the PC platform anyway.

God bless,
-Toby Reyelts

Man. Sure is awful there's only one video card maker around...

Now that we have the specs, how long before we can expect implementations that actually take advantage of them?

They already do. ;)

NVidia OpenGL bad-ass extenstions

NVidia DX8 SDK

both contain very similar stuff you'll find i think, and I've always found OpenGL to be a better interface anyway. DX8 is night and day better than DX7 or before, but still carries a bit of the bloat around the middle that DirectX is famous for...

NVidia OpenGL bad-ass extenstions

NVidia DX8 SDK

both contain very similar stuff you'll find i think, and I've always found OpenGL to be a better interface anyway. DX8 is night and day better than DX7 or before, but still carries a bit of the bloat around the middle that DirectX is famous for...

For those of you that couldn't attend the demo personally, there are some pictures (small ones) at the Nvidia Website. Here is the link. Quite frankly I think it's simply incredible that they could render the movie in realtime at any resolution or framerate. As you can see from the pictures, the character still look pretty damn good. Bravo Nvidia!

Does this mean there's a nap site somewhere where I can download Aki herself and not some comatose Window$ screensaver? But this isn't the Aki I fell in love with.

Can be found at http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=final_fantasy

The article (on yahoo) is pretty exagerated and sensationalistic, but the images are still very impressive, even they are about what you would expect at 2.5 FPS with such a powerful card. I think it is a pretty good indication of what the next generation of console games (after gamecube and x-box) will look like.

The average time it took to render a single frame in the Final Fantasy Technology Demo was less than one-tenth of a second, compared to the 90 minutes it took in the movie, Final Fantasy The Spirits Within!

First of all, a direct link to ATI's SmartShader tech introduction.

I have a few disparate thoughts on this subject, but rather than scatter them throughout the messages I'll put 'em all in one place.

ATI are attacking what is possibly the weakest part IMHO of DirectX 8 - the pixel shaders. Pixel shaders operate on the per-fragment level, rather than on the per-vertex level vertex shaders which were actually Quite Good. The problem with Pixel Shaders 1.1 is that, to paraphrase John Carmack, "You can't just do a bunch of math and then an arbitary texture read" - the instruction set seemed to be tailored towards enabling a few (cool) effects, rather than supplying a generic framework. Again, to quote Carmack, "It's like EMBM writ large". Read a recent .plan of his if you want to read more.

If you read the ATI paper, they don't really tell you what they've done - just a lot of promises, and a couple of "more flexibles!", "more better!" kind of lip-service. I don't care about reducing the pass number. Hardware is getting faster. True per-pixel phong shading looks nice, but then all they seem to do extra is allow you to vary some constants across the object via texture addresses. Well that's great, but texture upload bandwidth is can already be significant bottleneck, so I don't know for sure that artists are gonna be able to create and leverage a separate ka, ks etc map for each material. (I did enjoy their attempts to make Phong's equation look as difficult as possible)

True bump-mapping? NVidia do a very good looking bump-map. Adding multiple bump-maps is very definitely an obvious evolutionary step, but again, producing the tools for these things is going to be key. Artists won't draw bump-maps.

Their hair model looks like crap. Sorry, but even as a simple anisotropic reflection example (which again NVidia have had papers on for ages) it looks like ass. Procedural textures, though, are cool - these will save on texture uploads if they're done right.

What does worry me is that the whole idea of getting NVidia and Microsoft together to do Pixel Shaders and Vertex Shaders is so that the instruction set would be universally adopted. Unfortunately, ATI seem to have said "Sod that, we'll wait for Pixel Shader 1.4 (or whatever) and support that." I hope that doesn't come back to bite them. DirectX 8.0 games are few and far between at the moment, so when they do come out there'll be a period when only Nvidia's cards will really cut it (I don't think ATI have a PS 1.0 implementation, someone please correct me if I'm wrong) - will skipping a generation hurt ATI, given that they're losing the OEM market share as well?

I dunno, this just seems like a lot of hype, little content.

Henry

Anything higher than 6.50 is a "leaked" driver, usually released by an Nvidia employee to certain news sites, not a "released" driver, available from Nvidia.

You don't need a PS2 in order to do that. Get a Geforce2 MX400 and the latest NVidia drivers. Hook the s-video port up to your TV (PAL or NTSC) and enjoy! I have successfully played Quake 3 on my TV, excellent picture quality and very fast too! Here's proof. And here is Konqueror displaying /. This card will even display the console at bootup if you only have your TV hooked up, unlike the Matrox cards.

-adnans

Non Photorealistic Rendering is very cool indeed.

Nvidia's website has some demos on how to do sketch rendering on their hardware. Intel have done some pretty cool research on sketch rendering and cartoon rendering.

This page has a lot of good links. Check any recent Siggraph set of proceedings as well.

Most current techniques seem to involve "thresholding" the Lambertian diffuse lighting equation, so banding the colours used, or using that as in index into a 1d texture map which contains the different shades used for a model.

Hmm. Check the websites above for a better explanation than that :)

Henry

I don't claim to be enlightened, but I'll give it a go.

CPU seems a little underspecced, but that depends on the amount of off-chip processing available. For comparison purposes, the X-BOX will ship with a 700MHz processor, which won't touch the graphics pipeline at all.

Reasonable amount of memory. Be interesting to see if they adopt a unified memory architecture (again, cf. X-BOX).

Integrated video chip is definately the norm for consoles - no expansion required, therefore reduce costs and optimise data paths by putting everything on the same board. The feature list was bog-standard a couple of years ago around the time of the TNT(2). It's only a little up on the original PlayStation. I speculate that they may not be pushing this console as a direct contender to X-BOX etc. unless they have some pretty significant improvements to make graphically, since that is where, to an extent, the war is being fought at the moment. Current hardware is touting 'fully' programmable pipelines, along with a whole lot of cool features (cube environement mapping, per-pixel lighting, shadow generation in hardware, bump-mapping etc).

This would be a capable 3d machine a year or two ago. Now it could be considered a little dated.

Henry

The graphics card area of interest has moved away somewhat from the super-high fill rate battles that were all the rage in the day of the Voodoo cards.

It's all about interesting and orthogonal features now. GeForce 3 brings vertex and pixel shaders in hardware to the mix, as well as hardware shadow map support. The disappointing thing is that 3D textures (despite word otherwise from John Carmack) don't appear to be accelerated in hardware, at least with latest drivers (see a recent thread in the advanced section of www.opengl.org on that unfolding story - NVidia are soon to make an announcement on what the deal really is).

Being able to program in a pseudo-assembler language for custom per-pixel effects is a hark back to the old days when you had complete freedom over everything you could do, but most of it was slow. Now we have a better mix where we are hardware accelerated, but pretty flexible down to a programmable level. *However* the current revision of pixel shaders (1.0? 1.1? can't remember) on DirectX (and very similarly and more relevantly on OpenGL) aren't as flexible as some may like (notably John Carmack), since to paraphrase him "You can't just do a bunch of maths and lookup a texture". Hopefully that will get better with time.

Yes these things are important to games mostly. And yes they are arguably the biggest step forward in consumer graphics tech since the original 3dfx card... certainly since hardware TnL. Wait for the price to come down (since initial pricing is aimed at developers and the *really* hardcore gamer), and in the meantime amuse yourself with some of the demos from Nvidia's developer site. Nvidia are by far the most developer friendly company I've ever encountered, so short of Open Sourcing their drivers (which we have no right to expect them to do), they are almost ideal from my (developer's) perspective.

Henry

NVidia drivers are free (as in cost), and they do provide the source code as well, though you aren't allowed to change/redistribute the code. I don't know how hard they'd enforce this though.
You'll find the drivers at http://www.nvidia.com/Products/Drivers.nsf/Linux.h tml

Andrew

Kudo's to NVIDIA for releasing their binary only driver wrapped into a source RPM. Very nifty for people who like to run custom kernels or beta versions.

You can download the kernel module in a source format and compile it in your machine yourself.
http://www.nvidia.com/Pages.nsf/Lookup/linux_02/$f ile/NVIDIA_kernel-0.9-769.src.rpm


- Ademar
ademar at conectiva.com.br

• I will buy a Geforce 3 someday aswell... probably within the next 8 months.. but it wont be the first generation, otherwise known as "MX" version of the card... I will wait to buy the "Pro" or "Ultra" version of the card wich will cost as much then as this first gen card does now.

The MX chipsets from nVidia are not first-run chipsets. They're the economy chipset, with half the number of pipelines and neutered in other ways. These are the cards that your average Joe buys, when he doesn't want to spend more than $150 on a card, yet thinks he needs the "latest and greatest". The funny thing is that a GeForce 256 GTS is about the same price as a GeForce 2 MX, yet the GeForce 256 will perform better because it's not been castrated.

nVidia has various different chipsets that span the market vertically, from the MX for average Joes, to the GO for mobile users, to the Pro and Ultra (where the Ultra is typically a 6-month refresh) for the gamers, to the Quadro for graphics professionals. Check out www.nvidia.com for more info on their product lines.

I know that nvidia has the geforce2go mobile chip. Ati will probably come out with a new laptop chip as well. Those two are probably your best bet.

However, it does take a while to get a new video chip in a laptop because each individual model has to get certified (this is what nvidia told me). So, even though the nvidia chip is out now, it might still be another four months or so until you see it in action.

Now, if you have money, i would suggest this route - microatx. You can get some pretty sweet plastic cases that are very small, and decent motherboards from good manufacturers like Asus. Pair this up with a flatpanel and you'd have a trick gaming machine for sure.... if you're really into hacking you can mount the flatpanel in the side of the case, but you might need to get a slightly bigger case for that.

So, if you don't want to wait, go microatx. if you do, just keep your eyes open until a laptop with the gf2go comes out.

Well, you can't have done much research.

For best-class gaming, get a high-end NVidia card. Get the linux drivers here. They provide detailed information about requirements and setting it up. The driver is currently closed-source, however, so you are dependent on NVidia's continued support.

From what I've read, the ATI Radeon has performance to rival NVidia's GeForce and Precision Insight are creating open-source drivers. So I'd recommend this one :)

For a cheap, no brain option, get an old 16Mb 3DFX VooDoo 3 based card. Lots on ebay at very nice prices. Well supported in XFree.

You'll want to use XFree4 of course, to benefit from the 3D hardware acceleration in the Direct Rendering Infrastructure (DRI).

vertex and pixelshaders. check out this link , nvidia has created OpenGL extensions for all the new GeForce3 glory. What did you expect? Theyve bonded quite well with the Apple guys, and with Apple choosing OpenGL as it primary 3D API for OSX. Expect the support from nvidia to be on par with their DirectX support.

And speaking of Apples, there are being ported more games for the mac now than ever, and a OSX/OpenGL based game will be VERY easy to port to a linux platform. So I guess that OSX probertly would be a great thing for linux gaming. And OpenGL as a gaming API in general, if a developer chooses to use OpenGL as a basic for his engine, he would be able to implement his game on Windows, Mac and Linux. Only having to recode the windows handlers.

Sure, we have OpenGL, but with the release of DirectX 8, the cross-platform API just doesn't cut it anymore. Lacking universal support for vertex and pixel shaders, developers are forced into the situation where they can either reduce the quality of their titles by ignoring the improved features that the newer releases of DirectX offer, or by ignoring Linux.

Take a look here for all the extensions available to you (including shaders) right now.

Take a look here for NVidia's OpenGL SDK which includes, yup, vertex shaders.

In the DX8 world developer's will also need to cripple their software if the card doesn't support the shaders in hardware. So I really fail to see what the argument is here.

Ryan T. Sammartino

a laptop's going to ask me to buy it when it's got a new fantastic mobile nVIDIA graphics card. when that happens, i'm not sure i'm going to be able to resist. that opengl support has seemed to be the one thing that's never been up to speed. oh well, i suppose i should put my student loan to good use.

i was angry:1 with:2 my:4 friend - i told:3 4 wrath:5, 4 5 did end.

I can't stand how Apple keeps on insisting that they have to do everything in house and everything proprietary... instead of using cheap, standard parts

they keep on using proprietary things like
ATA
PCI and AGP
USB
IEEE 1394
PC-100 and 133 RAM
15 pin VGA ports
1/8" audio Jacks
1000/100/10bT or 100/10bT Ethernet on every machine
PCMCIA, S-Video, and VGA outputs on thier laptops

Jeezz.. if they ever got a clue, *maybe* I could upgrade a Mac with a good gaming video card, cheap RAM, cheap IDE hard drives, use my regular PC monitor, use a cheap USB scanner, speakers and networking gear.. much less there's no way to install Windows or Linux on their computers

fuckin Apple.

nVidia released new XFree86 drivers for their line of chipsets, including the GeForce 3, on March 15th. They should work with any XFree86 4.0.x, so you needn't be upgrading just for GeForce 3 support, especially since these drivers include 3D, while 4.0.3's are 2D-only.

Get your redhot drivers here.

Remember that the nVidia XFree86 3d drivers only support XFree86 versions 4.0 and 4.1. nVidia.com Linux Driver Page

Couple problems with that conspiracy theory...

1) The cost to build one of these things would be far greater than the cost of the largest rendering farms.

2) 3D render speeds seem to be doubling at nearly _twice_ the rate of Moore's Law. A frame that takes an hour to render today, will take only 15 minutes to render in 18-24 months.

Have you seen some of the GeForce3 footage??

It won't be long before movies like Jurassic Park will be rendered in real time at studios... and not long after that, in our own homes. But by then studios will probably have replaced most actors (and sets) with inexpensive, high quality CGI dopplegangers, thus increasing total production time again to several years.

Nitpick the second: Tom says there are no shadow-buffering demos out there, but there's one right here.
It demonstrates some of the problems and shortcomings of the technique.

implementing unprecedented new features such as these vertex shaders, rather than improving more general stuff such as fillrate or transformation and lighting

Duh! Vertex shaders -are- a generalisation (whatever) of the fixed function T&L pipeline!

Follow this bizarre URL which you can get to from the nVIDIA homepage thus: NVIDIA.Com> Developer Relations> Whitepapers> Implementation of "Missing" Vertex Shader Instructions. Work through the examples, don't just skim the text, follow the code execution. Then you'll grok vertex shaders.

You have a point about GeForce3 and DX8 fixing the hardware specification and therefore making it harder for similar innovations or improvements from other manufacturers to be adopted, but Carmack already said something similar about pixel shaders in his recent GeForce3 articles.

Support chipmakers that are seeking to make everything run better, like ATI and PowerVR.

I'm a big fan of Imagination Technologies' PowerVR and tile based rendering in general just in case you think I'm an nVIDIA groupie.

All I see here is another kneejerk /. conspiracy theory. Sigh.

Kernel Driver
GL Files

They compile and work fine on my CVS build of the 2.4.1-XFS tree.