realistic minimum GL version support in a year?

Max Optional · 2012-02-02T16:36:16

I'd really like to go with 3.0 (2008) as it simplifies things considerably for me, but it wouldn't kill me to go as low as 1.5 (2003) for core functionality. Doom3, which I use as a low end benchmark seems to run on 1.2/1.2.1 (1998). Strangely enough there's a thin line of DX8 (2000) and slightly thicker line of DX9 (2002) users [totalling around 6%] in the Steam Hardware Survey. I'm guessing these are people with essentially unupgraded office-type computers. Are those worth targeting? I mean, if something is meant to perform with GPU transforms in mind, then performance on those computers is going to be abysmal anyway since it's logically unreasonable to expect that the CPU would outperform the GPU by a considerable margin to make up for the difference? At the same time 2008 seems a bit too recent or can I expect some of the core 3.0 features to be managed by the driver if required? The question stems from the fact that I'm using a 2008 laptop with a GF280M to test things. It's good, because IMO it's a good approximation of a lower-to-medium end system. Strangely enough, though it seems to support 3.3 features here and there, which weren't available until 2010 (which I assume is adjusted for by the driver). What are your thoughts?

Graphics and GPU Programming Programming

Started by irreversible January 28, 2012 11:59 AM

10 comments, last by Nairou 12 years, 2 months ago

Tachikoma

575

January 31, 2012 12:07 PM

If you started development recently, by the time you're done the landscape would have shifted somewhat anyway - i.e. more devices would be supporting newer GL versions.

Latest project: Sideways Racing on the iPad