On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Gregory Carter <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for clarifying the current issues. > > Slow is a relative term, I did not mean to say the project is slow per se, > just in comparison to Intel's roadmap the immediate benefit to an open > architecture shouldn't be the only reason for pursing the project. > > Bluntly I would like to see a hardware graphics architecture with shader > support that is not encumbered with patents or the typical secret dealing > requirements of signing over your first born in meetings that happen at > Nvidia and ATI to insure nobody knows how much each company is stealing from > their competitors or the open source community. > > Which is the real reason for NDA's, and no source code. > > In your estimation, what would it take to build a prototype with decent > shader support for something like OpenGL 4.2 support? >
That's a really good question. If I had nothing else to do, less than a year, for a reference design. Ironically, breaking it down could actually slow things down in some areas, but the educational opportunities are very important. Also, there's more to this than just synthesizable logic. We need a compiler, for instance, and that's definitely not my area. Also, part of the point behind the project is to be able to evaluate design alternatives; in terms of performance and energy, the first reference design is likely to suck. (But it'll still be useful for back-annotating power.) Also, before the synthesizable design, we need the software simulator, which is where we architect the thing in the first place. -- Timothy Normand Miller, PhD http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~millerti Open Graphics Project _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
