Timothy Miller wrote:
On 3/21/06, James Richard Tyrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<SNIP>
Marketing OGC would be challenging in the face of competing products
from Intel and VIA.
Are these really satisfactory for OpenGL?
Of course, there will be lots of people buying OGC for AMD-based
systems without built-in video. Hopefully, our greater degree of
disclosure will result in much superior drivers, which would
certainly be a competitive advantage.
ATI and NVidia didn't really do very well with OpenGL to start with. I
presume that this has improved, but do they currently offer
satisfactory OpenGL drivers? Perhaps this is more than a driver issue
since Sun uses 3DLabs hardware.
Perhaps an Intel based board would be a good idea since a lot of
PCs don't have a graphics processor built in. It looks like it
would be possible to make a graphics board using an 82945G north
bridge chip. You would need a bus interface chip, a FPGA and an
EEPROM. Is there a market for such a low end open graphics board?
Zack Rusin seems to like the Intel chip. I wonder how well the new
"GMA950" will work and if Intel will make a full 3D driver for it.
Howard looked into using a north bridge chip like this. IIRC, we
figured out that it's designed to be a central resource and cannot be
made to act as a peripheral device. Perhaps that has changed.
I'll have to read the documentation.
For many people, documentation won't be enough. They want
performance.
Actually, I would want OpenGL support that was 100% functional.
--
JRT
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
