James Richard Tyrer wrote:
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 bemade 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.
Quite easy to accomplish, since software rendering exists to provide 100% functionality.
So the only question becomes, what can be offloaded to the GPU in a useful and performant manner?
Jeff
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
