Well, since I didn't saw any thread about it, here it is:
OpenGL registry where you can see the pdfs of the spec.
And nVidia's drivers for it (Linux/Windows/x86/x86_64/yaddayadda). There are a few new extensions also available for OpenGL 3 hardware.
OpenGL 4.4 spec is published
I'm excited about ARB_Sparse_Texture, though I'm a little confused as to why they don't support any of the 3-component texture formats.
Not a very interesting revision, but the new extensions (sparse texture, bindless texture) are intriguing...
Well, since I didn't saw any thread about it, here it is:
OpenGL registry where you can see the pdfs of the spec.
And nVidia's drivers for it (Linux/Windows/x86/x86_64/yaddayadda). There are a few new extensions also available for OpenGL 3 hardware.
Thanks for the heads up. I'll have to check it out.
I think the biggest improvement is the conformace test. From what i head from who prefer DX over GL is that the drivers sometimes have different behaviours for different cards (with openGL). With this change, all the driver will(?should?) have the same behaviour, making it easier to develop openGL programs.
So, OpenGL 4.4 specs have been published, and AMD still doesn't have a working implementation of OpenGL 4.3. This is wonderful. 
GPU hardware hasn't supported 3-component texture formats for a long time (aside from packed formats like DXT1).I'm excited about ARB_Sparse_Texture, though I'm a little confused as to why they don't support any of the 3-component texture formats.
If you ask GL to give you an RGB texture, on the GPU it will allocate an RGBA texture and pretend that the alpha channel doesn't exit...
Yeah that's something that I always have a whinge about, so this makes me very happyI think the biggest improvement is the conformace test. From what i head from who prefer DX over GL is that the drivers sometimes have different behaviours for different cards (with openGL). With this change, all the driver will(?should?) have the same behaviour, making it easier to develop openGL programs.
[the ARB] has created the first set of formal OpenGL conformance tests since OpenGL 2.0 [and] full certification is mandatory for OpenGL 4.4 and onwards
Not gonna comment on the features since I'm still trying to play catch up (this is what happens when you live in a place where any upgrade to a PC ends up costing an entire salary, let alone getting a new computer that isn't already outdated).
I'm curious about the certification part, though. Yeah, sure, having a guarantee that drivers always work the same is nice, but how do they plan to enforce it? Does this mean it'll be outright illegal to release an OpenGL driver that isn't certified? I can see that being a massive issue for FOSS drivers (which does matter on Linux). Does anybody have exact details on what certification allows?
EDIT: should have checked more carefully
http://www.khronos.org/conformance/
OK, it's mostly a trademark issue (so e.g. Mesa probably still would be safe since it doesn't call itself OpenGL). It seems that FOSS implementations still would be able to go through the implementers program if they want to use the name (not the adopters one due to the fee).
So, OpenGL 4.4 specs have been published, and AMD still doesn't have a working implementation of OpenGL 4.3. This is wonderful.
Well, AMD is much less of an issue than Intel, they (AMD) are actually pretty good nowadays. Intel is the real problem. They not only do not have a working implementation of OpenGL 4.0, but they also do not have a working implementation of OpenGL 3.0.
Which makes me wonder what this entire certification thing will be good for at all.
Intel will not pull functional 3.0 (let's not even imagine 4.4) drivers out of their magic hat, but Intel integrated GPUs are the main GPU in every El Cheapo computer, and in the major share of non-tablet computers anyway, too. And, outside the world of Android, they're pretty much omni-present in tablets as well.
Which will probably mean no more and no less than OpenGL will simply not be supported (or supported even worse as it is now) on a considerable share of hardware. Sorry for being pessimistic, but I just can't see Intel producing a quality 4.x driver and undergo certification any time soon. They'll just show everyone the middle finger, knowing their CPUs are sold anyway.
So, OpenGL 4.4 specs have been published, and AMD still doesn't have a working implementation of OpenGL 4.3. This is wonderful.
Well, AMD is much less of an issue than Intel, they (AMD) are actually pretty good nowadays. Intel is the real problem. They not only do not have a working implementation of OpenGL 4.0, but they also do not have a working implementation of OpenGL 3.0.
Which makes me wonder what this entire certification thing will be good for at all.
Intel will not pull functional 3.0 (let's not even imagine 4.4) drivers out of their magic hat, but Intel integrated GPUs are the main GPU in every El Cheapo computer, and in the major share of non-tablet computers anyway, too. And, outside the world of Android, they're pretty much omni-present in tablets as well.
Which will probably mean no more and no less than OpenGL will simply not be supported (or supported even worse as it is now) on a considerable share of hardware. Sorry for being pessimistic, but I just can't see Intel producing a quality 4.x driver and undergo certification any time soon. They'll just show everyone the middle finger, knowing their CPUs are sold anyway.
I really don't consider Intel to be that big of any issue. Their integrated graphics are in a completely different class compared to AMD and Nvidia's dedicated GPUs. I mean whats the real advantage to being able to enable the latest OpenGL 4 / DX11 level features in a game if its going to run at 5fps?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
