On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 08:00:14AM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> I am not sure why you think it would be worth expending any effort on a
> 3S1500 version. That part is too small to implement our fixed function
> 3D pipeline. On the other hand, the 3S4000 is large enough not only to
> implement the fixed function pipeline, but to do some preliminary work
> on fragment shading.
Here's one possible reason.
Some video card applications, such as desktop publishing, don't
require any acceleration whatsoever. The simplest possible logical
interface that will let the X driver write to a high-resolution framebuffer
is enough. The image sharpness and color accuracy of the analog back end
are the only things that market cares about.
So if the small-FPGA option were to give the project the opportunity
to get a board and its driver working sooner, and didn't dissipate project
resources into multiple efforts, it might be justifiable on its own merits.
Of course, I haven't seen the figures for the economics of all this
as yet, so I'm not going to actually argue for that course of action.
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
