Jeff Garzik wrote:
James Richard Tyrer wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
James Richard Tyrer wrote:
The open source drivers are not fully functional. So, the question
In the context of the current thread... False.
OpenGL + 'nv' gives you a 100% fully functional OpenGL solution.
How well does the nVidia 3D hardware acceleration work with the "nv"
driver? If it doesn't work at all (which is my understanding), then
the driver isn't fully functional!
You said: "I would want OpenGL support that was 100% functional."
swrast+nv is 100% functional.
"Functional" implies nothing other than "it works." Thus, as I stated
23 1/2 hours ago, the only question becomes, what can be offloaded to
the GPU in a useful and performant manner?
For many functions, swrast is faster on modern CPUs, particularly
current multi-core CPUs, so its not an easy question with a "does it
have NV 3D accel?" checkbox.
I really don't see your point. If I buy a graphics board with hardware
3D acceleration and the driver doesn't use it, then I would say that the
driver isn't 'fully functional' -- I might as well stick with my old
Rage 64 based card. This had been my position all along.
The man page for the 'nv' driver states that it only does 2D
acceleration. The man page for the 'radeon' driver man page says that
it does support hardware 3D acceleration on some boards (the highest
numbered one being the FireGL 8800).
http://www.xfree86.org/4.5.0/nv.4.html
http://www.xfree86.org/4.5.0/radeon.4.html
So, which one is 'fully functional'? At least I hope that it clear what
I mean by 'fully functional'.
Perhaps what we need to do is clone the ATI R200 chip! :-D
--
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)
