Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Intel Linux

Intel Supports OpenGL ES 3.0 On Linux Before Windows 113

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the hot-to-the-touch dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Khronos Group has published the first products that are officially conformant to OpenGL ES 3.0. On that list is the Intel Ivy Bridge processors with integrated graphics, which support OpenGL ES 3.0 on open-source Linux Mesa. This is the best timing yet for Intel's open-source team to support a new OpenGL standard — the standard is just six months old whereas it took years for them to support OpenGL ES 2.0. There's also no OpenGL ES 3.0 Intel Windows driver yet that's conformant. Intel also had a faster turn-around time than NVIDIA and AMD with the only other hardware on the list being Qualcomm and PowerVR hardware. OpenGL ES 3.0 works with Intel Ivy Bridge when using the Linux 3.6 kernel and the soon-to-be-out Mesa 9.1." Phoronix ran a rundown of what OpenGL ES 3.0 brings back in August.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Supports OpenGL ES 3.0 On Linux Before Windows

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13, 2013 @02:39PM (#42886115)

    OpenGL ES is a cut-down version of OpenGL aimed at mobile and embedded. Windows has never supported any version of it, and probably won't anytime soon.

    So to see Linux get it "first" is completely unsurprising.

    It's like saying Linux supported the EXT3 filesystem before Windows. So?

    • by Zero__Kelvin (151819) on Wednesday February 13, 2013 @03:26PM (#42886737) Homepage
      I was unaware that there is no Windows for portable or embedded devices. Microsoft would start working on a mobile phone OS!
      • by Desler (1608317)

        It uses Direct3d. Also the story was referring to desktop Windows.

        • by ikaruga (2725453)
          Also windows mobile and RT only use ARM(AFAIK), while there are a few Intel Android phones and it's expected to see Ubuntu phones using both architectures as well. Linux actually has a need for new OpenGL ES version support.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by hairyfeet (841228)
        That would be like asking why the software that runs on an airplane doesn't run on your cellphone. Windows Embedded, just like Linux embedded, runs a stripped down kernel and a MUCH thinner OS because when you are dealing with an embedded system you just aren't gonna be doing as much as a full OS, as they are designed for specific functions.
        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          Windows Embedded, just like Linux Embedded, permits you to select how much of the operating system you want to include.

          Before Windows Embedded, there was Windows CE, the less said about which the better.

        • ",just like Linux embedded, runs a stripped down kernel "

          On modern embedded systems the Linux kernel is the same. In the old days, or in cases where Linux is used on processors without VMM support, the kernel might be substantially different. Today most embedded systems use an x86 or ARM architecture. They don't use a "stripped down" kernel. They use the same kernel, and configure at build time to use the features they want. The same is true on the desktop. The only difference that you may be mistaken

          • by hairyfeet (841228)

            Uhhh...yeah, kinda what I was talking about, you just don't include anything that isn't gonna be specifically need ed for the limited functions you are gonna support, hence a lower memory and space footprint. Just as you wouldn't build Windows Embedded with support for calc and WiFi and Windows sharing if its running in a Kiosk so too would you not include anything in embedded linux except the kernel and what module you need to support the specific hardware and perform the specific task you had in mind.

            Ki

            • " Windows Embedded, just like Linux embedded, runs a stripped down kernel "

              Again. You are simply wrong. Linux doesn't run a "stripped down" kernel. Just as with a desktop version the modules are either compiled at runtime into the kernel or loaded as needed. There is no difference. In an embedded system you know which modules are needed and which aren't so you build them into the kernel. There is no wasted storage space, since there is no need to have modules lying around on disk (including FLASH) jus

  • Not too suprising... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Junta (36770) on Wednesday February 13, 2013 @02:46PM (#42886197)
    Beating out nVidia and AMD is marginally surprising, but OpenGL ES support in Windows I'd figure to be the lowest priority 3D interface to implement for Windows, behind Direct3D and OpenGL. MS' attempt at targeting the lower end market is still emphasizing Direct3D, with OpenGL on Windows mostly only mattering for the occasional game engine and engineering application. OpenGL ES on Windows I'm thinking is a very very small slice of potentially interested parties.
    • Well depends on what the average consumer needs from their PC. If it is not gaming (which a consumer would buy a discrete card anyway), most consumers need some graphics for web surfing and the like. With the built-in graphics of Ivy Bridge, there is enough GPU power for the average consumer. Why would this average consumer need Direct3D for YouTube?
      • Well depends on what the average consumer needs from their PC. If it is not gaming (which a consumer would buy a discrete card anyway), most consumers need some graphics for web surfing and the like. With the built-in graphics of Ivy Bridge, there is enough GPU power for the average consumer. Why would this average consumer need Direct3D for YouTube?

        To say that they 'need' it would be a gross overstatement; but if they are doing their casual youtubing on a relatively recent wintel, they'll be using it anyway [msdn.com]...

      • Why would this average consumer need Direct3D for YouTube?

        Most consumers need DXVA - i.e. DirectX Video Acceleration. On a netbook DXVA would mean that you could play Youtube videos with low CPU usage. That's particularly important on a netbook.

        On my 1015PX - which is the second netbook I've bought so Intel have had two chances to get it right - it still doesn't work.

        http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accelerator-3150.23264.0.html [notebookcheck.net]

        According to Intel, the GMA 3150 can help the CPU decode MPEG2 videos. The DXVAChecker shows hooks for MPEG2 (VLD, MoComp, A, and C) up to 1920x1080. Therefore, the performance of the N450 and N470 with GMA 3150 is currently not sufficient to watch H.264 encoded HD videos with a higher resolution than 720p. HD flash videos (e.g. from youtube) are also not running fluently on the Atom CPUs.

        It supports MPEG2. I don't think I've ever played an MPEG2 video on this machine and it could probably decode them fine

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13, 2013 @03:13PM (#42886573)

    On Windows, the GPU is driven by either DirectX or OpenGL. Native OpenGL ES drivers for Windows are ONLY needed for cross-platform development where applications destined for mobile devices are built and tested on Windows first.

    Now, this being so, the usual way to offer ES on the desktop is via EMULATION LAYERS that take ES calls and pass them on to the full blown OpenGL driver. So long as full OpenGL is a superset of ES (which is mostly the case), this method works fine.

    The situation is different on Linux. Why? Because traditionally, Linux has terrible graphics drivers from AMD, Nvidia AND Intel. Full blown OpenGL contains tons of utterly useless garbage, and supporting this is more than Linux is worth. OpenGL ES is a chance to start over. OpenGL ES 2.0 already is good enough for ports of most AAA games (with a few rendering options turned off). OpenGL ES 3.0 will be an almost perfect alternative to DirectX and full blown OpenGL.

    OpenGL ES 2.0/3.0 is getting first class driver support on Linux class systems because of Android and iOS. OpenGL ES 3.0 will be the future standard GPU API for the vast majority of computers manufactured. However, on Windows, there is no reason to expect DirectX and full blown OpenGL to be displaced. As I've said, OpenGL ES apps can easily be ported to systems with decent OpenGL drivers.

    Intel is focusing on ES because, frankly, its drivers and GPU hardware have been terrible. It is their ONLY chance to start over and attempt to gain traction in the marketplace. On the Windows desktop, Intel is about to be wiped out by the new class of AMD fusion (CPU and GPU) parts that will power the new consoles. AMD is light-years ahead of Intel with integrated graphics, GPU driver support on Windows, and high speed memory buses with uniform memory addressing for fused CPU+GPU devices.

    Inside Intel, senior management have convinced themselves (falsely) that they can compete with ARM in low power mobile devices. This is despite the fact that 'Ivybridge' (their first FinFET device) was a disaster as an ultra low power architecture, and their coming design, Haswell, needs a die size 5-10 times its ARM equivalent. The Intel tax alone ensures that Intel could never win in this market. Worse again is the fact that Intel needs massive margins per CPU to simply keep the company going.

    PS Intel's products are so stinky, Apple is about to drop Intel altogether, and Microsoft's new tablet, Surface Pro 2, is going to use an AMD fusion part.

    • by Zero__Kelvin (151819) on Wednesday February 13, 2013 @03:31PM (#42886807) Homepage

      " Linux has terrible graphics drivers from AMD, Nvidia AND Intel."

      Since youdon't use Linux, or don't know how to configure it properly, you should refrain from speaking as though you have. NVIDIA and Intel have great Linux drivers. I cannot speak for AMD, since I haven't used them in years, but you seem to confuse the Open Source NVIDIA driver (nouveau) with the proprietary drivers, which work awesome and allow full use of the GPU through CUDA. Intel's Open Source driver is also quite good.

      • by fat_mike (71855)
        Try running X-Plane on the same system using a Windows 7 and any Linux distribution and tell me how awesome the open source drivers are compared to Windows.
        • First of all, X-Plane is designed for OS X, but can be made to run on Windows and Linux. Second of all, there is no problem with doing it if, as I clearly stated, you use the proprietary driver.
      • I wouldn't use Nvidia anyway, but if I did, I sure wouldn't use the binary pile of shit.

        Quality goes kinda like this:
        fglrx < Nvidia < Nouveau < r300g/r600g < i965

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          I wouldn't use Nvidia anyway, but if I did, I sure wouldn't use the binary pile of shit.

          Unless you wanted 3d acceleration that worked. Or XVBA that works. Or, basically, anything else that works beyond framebuffer and basic OpenGL.

          • My Intel 3D acceleration has recently been working great at playing some Steam games, actually. And so did my old Intel chip (well, Wine and ID, not Steam at that time), and so did my r300.

            >XVBA
            Eh, that would be nice, but even my old system played 1080p h.264 mkv files just fine, so I am not worried.

            >framebuffer
            the framebuffer is not a function of the Mesa driver...

        • Well, as a guy who never has used it, and never will use it, you are certainly in a position to counter my claim as a guy who does in fact use it even as I type this post.
          • ABI breakage is all you need to know about the blobs.

            And I never said I hadn't used it in the past. Because I did, though it didn't take me long to go buy a Radeon to replace it (this was pre-Nouveau)

    • by Guspaz (556486)

      Microsoft going AMD Fusion would be surprising, since the AMD Fusion chips that can compete with Haswell on a power usage standpoint make the Atom look high performance by comparison.

      • by hairyfeet (841228)
        You are forgetting how much people want their mobile devices to do everything their PCs will do and AMD does have a pretty big advantage when it comes to GPUs. it was a big enough advantage that not one, not two, but three of the next gen consoles are using their GPUs and two are using their APUs so having lots of multimedia power is a big plus and Intel is still behind in that area. i'm frankly shocked Intel hasn't bought Nvidia by now, it would give them the graphics expertise they could really use.
        • by Guspaz (556486)

          The PS4's use of an APU is an unsubstantiated rumour at this point, the Wii U definitely doesn't use an AMD CPU at all (it's a PowerPC for Pete's sake), and the XBox 720's rumoured to have a GPU that's more than double the size of the biggest one they're shipping today (as far as I can tell), indicating a more traditional CPU/GPU architecture...

          • by Guspaz (556486)

            Sorry, I should clarify, the GPU is more than double the size of the GPU in any APU.

          • by hairyfeet (841228)

            The PS4 is NOT a rumor as dev kits have already been sent, its using an "octo-core" (I put quotes because in the AMD arch the new modules work more like HT than full cores so IRL its a quad with HT) Jaguar based APU at 1.7GHz, the specs are already out there and they all say the same thing.

            As for the 720 if the rumors are true then it IS using a similar jaguar octo-core, its simply also using an AMD graphics chip (but no discrete graphics memory other than a little bit of SRAM which makes it even more likel

            • by Guspaz (556486)

              I find it highly questionable that a console manufacturer, who are normally incredibly sensitive to die size and unnecessary complexity, would ship consoles with both an iGPU and a dGPU requiring questionable multi-GPU techniques (which tend to add latency and microstutter) when they could simply ship a pure CPU with a more powerful GPU. Considering Intel's edge in manufacturing and IPC, there seems to be little advantage to using an AMD APU if you're going to rely mainly on an external GPU anyhow.

              • by hairyfeet (841228)

                Then you haven't kept up on current events and how the new GCN cores work. you see when you are in "multimedia mode" like say watching netflix or streaming video or even playing your "cut the rope" style games? it shuts down the powerful GPU and switches to the weaker APU to save a LOT of power. Then when you are playing your CoD or Crysis what it does is hand all the GPU work to the bigger chip and the APU does physics and other tasks that can be handled by a GP-GPU.

                You should really look up some of the in

    • by foijord (2840567)

      On Windows, the GPU is driven by either DirectX or OpenGL. Native OpenGL ES drivers for Windows are ONLY needed for cross-platform development where applications destined for mobile devices are built and tested on Windows first.

      That's a really good reason to have native OpenGL ES drivers IMHO. But why would you create an app on windows, and release it on any platform except windows?

    • On the Windows desktop, Intel is about to be wiped out by the new class of AMD fusion (CPU and GPU) parts that will power the new consoles. AMD is light-years ahead of Intel with integrated graphics, GPU driver support on Windows, and high speed memory buses with uniform memory addressing for fused CPU+GPU devices.

      Yet despite their allegedly superior technology, last year was an unmitigated disaster, a steady decline from Q1 to Q4 losing over 30% in revenue and where in Q4 2011 they had a gross margin of 46%, in Q4 2012 it was down to 15%. They're cutting in R&D, in 2011 they spent 1453 million, in 2012 1354 million and if they spend the whole of 2013 at Q4 2012 levels then 1252 million. Yes, hopefully the PS4/Xbox 720 will give AMD a much needed cash infusion but their technology is not at all selling so maybe t

      • by dbIII (701233)

        Yet despite their allegedly superior technology, last year was an unmitigated disaster

        Sales of personal computers are not doing well due to economic conditions and Intel has a tight grip on Dell etc, as well as closing the price gap that made AMD look like vastly better value for money in earlier years. It doesn't mean they are doomed.

        the market of high end desktop/workstation/server chips that AMD has pretty much abandoned

        Excuse me? Where did you get that from? There's a 32 core opteron coming out that

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        While Intel may have a tough time battling ARM on the low power front, AMD is totally lost.

        Intel has already proven they can't battle ARM on the low power front. Even when they made ARM processors themselves they were higher-power than everyone else's. Literally. But your point about AMD power consumption is well-taken. Not since Geode have they managed to be impressive in that department.

  • So your saying support for OpenGL came out faster on an Open Source Operating system (Linux) then it did on Windows? Shocking!
    • by Desler (1608317)

      No this is about OpenGL ES which is basically irrelevant on desktop Windows.

      • And it's basically irrelevent on x86/x64 linux too. Afaict when software supports ES it generally has a compile time switch between regular opengl and opengl ES. Pretty much all GPUs seen in x86 systems support regular opengl while only a subset of them support ES so the sane thing for a distro to do is to use regular opengl for the x86/x64 builds of their software and only build for ES on architectures where ES only GPUs are common.

"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt.

Working...