Simon wrote:
On 4/17/07, Hugh Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Attila, you are missing the point. I don't claim that a
general purpose CPU can outperform a GPU. But it *could*
execute programmable shaders with enough performance to
be 'good enough' for many 3D purposes, and it would be
a hell of a lot quicker and easier than designing our
own.
However, the resulting graphics chip would be needlessly expensive,
and unpopular as a result.
And just how cheap is a custom-designed floating point
capable parallel SIMD ALU going to be? nVidia and ATI
(er, AMD/ATI) have truckloads of money to invest in
design and fabbing. OGF doesn't.
The first OGC card doesn't need to have programmable
shaders, but the second will. Thanks to MS Vista all
new PCs and laptops have shader capable 3D graphics
(not necessarily very fast, but shaders none the less)
and Linux is fast going the same way (Beryl/Compiz).
In two years, it will be impossible to buy a PC or
laptop without shaders - or putting it another way,
a microscopic market for any graphics card without
shaders.
ATI and nVidia had years to build up gradually from
the first simple GPUs (no branches, no floating point
textures, etc) to the monsters of today. OGF doesn't
have that luxury.
--
Hugh Fisher
DCS, ANU
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
