Slashdot Mirror
Open-Source Intel Mesa Driver Now Supports OpenGL 3.2
An anonymous reader writes "Mesa and its open-source Intel graphics driver now are in compliance with the OpenGL 3.2 specification (PDF). It took four years for Mesa to get up to GL 3.2 / GLSL 1.50 compliance, and support for the other Mesa drivers isn't too far behind, but they're still years behind in supporting OpenGL 4. Supporting a major new OpenGL API has resulted in Mesa 10.0 being called the next release. It has many other features, like performance improvements and new Gallium3D features. OpenGL 3.3 support might also be completed prior to the Mesa 10.0 release in November."
.. can I play on my SandyBridge i5-2410M -based HD 3000, that I wasn't able to play before, natively or under wine?
This is truly a great day for Linux gaming.
...any game with a low quality graphics setting at a low resolution
I have the sameish processor and its surprisingly nippy. I just ploughed through the half life/2 series running at 1080P its getting on a little, but still looks very nice.
I have been thinking of treating myself to an AMD card...because of the lesser of two evils Nvidia being a little too full of shit for my liking, when Intel can throw 30 programmers behind their open source graphics on Linux, but steam seems to have given Nvidia their blessing...but right now I don't have to rush that choice. I have on-board graphics that is fast enough with real support behind it.
I've been developing a game for the past three years. I started out targeting OpenGL 2.1, but a year ago I decided to target OpenGL 3.3. Back then I thought this was a writeoff for Intel, but I didn't really care because I had never owned Intel GPU, and I figured "it's only 10% of the market...".
Then I upgraded my PC to an Ivy Bridge CPU + high-end add-on GPU card in January. I stll didn't care about Intel, because I had the add-on card. But then I upgraded my 5-year-old laptop to an Ivy Bridge CPU last month, and suddenly I care because the new laptop won't run my game! :(
However, at this rate of improvement of the Mesa driver, it looks like they'll support 3.3 in a few months, so I'll get to run my game on my laptop without any changes long before I'm ready to release. :) But shoot... I'd probably be willing to try to support OpenGL 3.2 if that's as far as they get with the Mesa driver, since I'm only using 3.3 in a few places.
Maybe Black Mesa...
That was a joke. Haha. Fat chance.
Intel Market Share is 60%; Nvidia/AMD about 20% even Steam place Intel share at 15%(and Growing); Nvidia with 50%, AMD with 30%.
Isn't Mesa software rendering? I've never found it to be anything but abysmal performance. Why does anyone use it?
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
So, will my Acer D270 with that Poulsbo cra..chipset get a 3d any day now?
Every PC with ANY GPU supports every version of DirectX and OpenGL, but this fact is completely pointless and useless. I refer, of course, to software emulation, proving that just because you support an API, doesn't make the support at all useful in the real world.
It is how WELL and how COMPLETELY you support something like OpenGL. Slow, buggy and unreliable support is worse than no support whatsoever. Fantastic, utterly reliable GPU parts are available from Nvidia and AMD at minimal cost for modest, but very useful performance. Who the hell need dodgy as heck performance on an Intel part? what possible use would that be to anyone?
You have a computer running some OS. You can run a first-quality closed-source GPU driver on it, or a completely useless open-source driver (with the added ingredient that the open-source driver is a perfect vector for trojan attacks against your machine). The GPU hardware, just like the other hardware on your machine, is 'closed' and you have no issue with that fact.
But some dysfunctional sociopath has told you that 'closed' drivers are 'bad' (in some unspecified way, because if you EVER need to rely on the quality of coding, it is in a driver).
The good and useful aspect of open-source are absolutely fantastic, should be supported and praised at every opportunity. But the leeches who attach to the concept of open-source, and attempt to turn it into a form of 'church' are the same devious parasites behind all forms of organised religion. They use concepts of fear, devotion and loyalty to disarm critical thinking.
Intel (and others) only 'back' open-source drivers because the dangerous leaders of open-source churches declare any company that doesn't allow open-source drivers to be evil sinners who need to be shunned. Since each hardware company is in competition with others, they cannot afford the risk of offending the members of this 'church'.
Now the issue of OPEN documentation is very different. When AMD, for instance, allows access to documentation describing the low-level functioning of their GPU parts, it allows you and me to put pressure on AMD to build better drivers or coding environments to access the true power of these chips. But we need the software tools of the future to be as good as possible. The hardware people should know how to write the best drivers for their products- and we users should expect quality in their software just as we expect quality in their hardware.