ARM And AMD Partner On OpenCL

[falchard]

On graphics for games, I would say DirectX is the only choice. OpenGL just isn't there for consumer graphics cards. I don't think its a mystery that consumer graphics cards render OpenGL worse then Workstation cards. While directX works better on consumer cards.

The issue here is 2 fold. Consumer Graphics cards have to be designed for OpenGL rather then DirectX in the first place. This will most likely result in a higher cost at first. When you are talking about playing any games in 3D, you are talking about using a nVidia or AMD graphics card as well. So the smartphones are not yet a factor until both companies start to make talks with ARM architecture. Even then the transition will take a couple years.

Second DirectX 11 is simply a much more robust API for games. You can do more with the shaders, its backwards compatible, and its not as huge a performance hit.

I think this will definetly be a positive. I view OpenCL as a necessity over its alternatives. Maybe DirectCompute will be better. Cuda really should not be taken seriously outside of single platform usage.

 

[palladin9479]

Yes, OpenGL was created for CAD and professional visualization. And yes, Microsoft was able to quickly improve Direct3D (DirectX is not just graphics). However, Microsoft seemingly improved by light-years because Direct3D was SO BAD to begin with. Microsoft had NO IDEA what game developers wanted from 3D graphics, that is why many in the mid 90s went with OpenGL. And if you actually look at the way the Direct3D API has evolved you will notice one thing: each version became more and more like OpenGL!

Also, you did not mention that Microsoft has tried to cripple OpenGL at every chance. For example, backing away from Fahrenheit which would have united OpenGL and Direct3D, reversing their commitment to provide DirectDraw bindings for OpenGL, and removing OpenGL support in their basic drivers.

All I hear is "rah rah I hate the Evil Microsoft" and so forth. Bashing MS was old in 2003

The original DirectX sucked, everyone knows this. The point was that MS was able to quickly fix and adapt it for what developers wanted and for what HW manufacturers provided. OpenGL just stayed there and didn't do anything. Eventually DirectX 7 was released and for the first time it overcame OpenGL is capabilities, then DX8, then DX9. The entire time OpenGL was going back and forth with changes stuck "in committee". By the time OpenGL was updated DX10 and 11 were already on the horizon and the industry had already chosen DirectX as the standard. NVidia even tried to save OpenGL by releasing "Extensions" to provide features that the standard didn't support yet. This ultimately failed as NVidia is a single manufacturer and their extensions only support their own HW. MS didn't need to pull any shenanigans, the OpenGL community did themselves in with the constant bickering and in-fighting of what to add and not add. You want someone to blame, then blame the industrial companies that controlled the OpenGL standard, they are the ones that did not want it updated.

DirectX is the standard now because it won the battle. Its an "open" platform, anyone can go and download the binaries, anyone can use it in developing software. Its controlled by a single entity and thus only available on the platforms that entity wants. But anyone's free to reverse engineer it and provide support for DirectX on other platforms.

And BTW, MS didn't handicap OpenGL in any way, your drinking the koolaid. OpenGL acceleration support is provided by the HW manufacturers themselves. The OS only has software rendering support for use when there is no HW rendering available. This is a requirement by the OpenGL standard but not by DirectX (although there is DirectX software rendering engine). MS's OpenGL Software Rendering sucks, everyone knows this, so does their Software DirectX Rendering. Neither of those is capable of playing a "3D" game with any notion of speed, we're talking single digit FPS at low resolution settings. Instead games use the HW provided OpenGL rendering engine, which MS has absolutely nothing to do with. Anyone who used to do OpenGL back in the late 90's and early 2000's would know this. NVidia provided excellent OpenGL support while ATI provided absolute sh!t OpenGL support.

But please, don't let any of this stop you from spreading the hateraid around.

 

[shin0bi272]

[citation][nom]Khimera2000[/nom]OpenCL stands a chance its only real compatition is locked down to a single hardware manufacturer, so I dont see it getting ported across the board to support its competiters. [/citation]

This is the only thing I really have to take issue with you on. AMD can license the physx engine from nvidia they just chose not to. Plus dont forget nvidia gives out their engine for free to sell more cards because the more games that use their engine the more cards they can sell to accelerate those games. The entire hardware acceleration was brought from an ASIC to the gpu via the cuda platform that nvidia cards run on. If amd wanted to run physx they could license it from nvidia but amd is backing bullet and openCL.

I do find it interesting that the former head of ageia is now pushing for openCL... sour grapes mayhaps? If his company wanted to stay relevant they should have had a pci-express version of their card because pci with its 33mB/sec transfer rate just isnt fast enough to send all that data to the cpu and then to the gpu... but they didnt and their company was turned into an after thought that was just low hanging fruit so to speak for a big company to pick up. Nvidia bought them and AMD (or even ATi back then) didnt. Now if Nvidia were to come out with a pci-e say 1x or 2x or even 4x physx ppu card for amd users to put in their systems could you foresee the massive influx of dollars into nvidia's bank account? That right there might kill bullet and openCL and all it would take would be taking the ageia PPU and updating it to pci-e.

 

[PhilFrisbie]

[citation][nom]palladin9479[/nom]All I hear is "rah rah I hate the Evil Microsoft" and so forth.[/citation]
I am sorry you felt I was bashing Microsoft. Most of my programing over the years has been based on Windows platforms, and I still prefer Visual Studio as my main IDE. However, I have kept my eyes wide open, have kept myself open to other platforms, and have actually lived through most of Microsoft's bad choices. Did you?

[citation][nom]palladin9479[/nom]The entire time OpenGL was going back and forth with changes stuck "in committee". By the time OpenGL was updated DX10 and 11 were already on the horizon and the industry had already chosen DirectX as the standard. NVidia even tried to save OpenGL by releasing "Extensions" to provide features that the standard didn't support yet.[/citation]
Another correction here: Extensions have always been part of the OpenGL API. SGI realized that hardware advances might outpace updating the API. This is an advantage over D3D, where hardware manufacturers must petition Microsoft to add features to the next version.

[citation][nom]palladin9479[/nom]And BTW, MS didn't handicap OpenGL in any way, your drinking the koolaid. OpenGL acceleration support is provided by the HW manufacturers themselves. The OS only has software rendering support for use when there is no HW rendering available...Anyone who used to do OpenGL back in the late 90's and early 2000's would know this. NVidia provided excellent OpenGL support while ATI provided absolute sh!t OpenGL support.But please, don't let any of this stop you from spreading the hateraid around.[/citation]
Again, the broken Microsoft promise of DirectDraw bindings greatly hurt OpenGL full-screen games in the late 90's. It is VERY difficult to reliably change desktop resolution and bit depth without using DirectDraw.

Now, beginning with Vista Microsoft provided an inefficient OpenGL 1.4 wrapper over D3D and encouraged graphics manufacturers to no longer provide their own ICD. Microsoft did this because Aero uses D3D to render the desktop and they provided no interface to allow OpenGL windows rendered by an ICD.

Again, I do not hate Microsoft, otherwise I would purge my home and business of Microsoft products, but I do hate some of their actions and poor choices they have made to try to protect and hold on to their monopoly and power they exert over the PC industry.

 

[PhilFrisbie]

On graphics for games, I would say DirectX is the only choice. OpenGL just isn't there for consumer graphics cards. I don't think its a mystery that consumer graphics cards render OpenGL worse then Workstation cards. While directX works better on consumer cards.

The only difference between a consumer and workstation graphics card, at least those based on NVIDIA and ATI GPUs, is the driver, not the hardware.

Workstation OpenGL drivers must pass MANY more extensive tests to insure they render perfectly and are compatible with the major professional CAD and graphics packages. This extensive driver testing is actually the major reason workstation cards cost so much more than consumer cards, and the reason that often OpenGL games will run slightly FASTER on a consumer card than the equivalent workstation card.

 

[fir_ser]

This is good news, hope a deeper partnership will evolve between AMD and ARM.

 

[fir_ser]

Hope AMD would acquire an ARM license so I imagine an ARM based bulldozer processor.