Slashdot Log In
Open Source Graphics Card Available For Advance Orders
Posted by
timothy
on Wed May 21, 2008 05:21 PM
from the one-blast-from-both-the-past-and-future dept.
from the one-blast-from-both-the-past-and-future dept.
mollyhackit writes "The Open Graphics Project, which we've been following since it first started looking for experts four years ago, has just announced that the OGD1 is available for preorder now. The design features 2 DVI, 256MB RAM, PCI-X, and a Xilinx Spartan-3 FPGA along with a nonvolatile FPGA for programming on boot. FPGAs are reprogrammable hardware which means the graphics card can be optimized for specific tasks and execute them faster than a general purpose CPU. The card could be programmed for certain codecs to speed up encoding or decoding. An open hardware design means potential for better driver support. Of course you could always use the FPGA for something else... say crypto cracking."
Related Stories
[+]
Hardware: Open Source Graphic Card Project Seeks Experts 370 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Could this dream of many open source developers and users finally happen? A 100% open sourced graphic card with 3D support? Proper 3D card support for OpenBSD, NetBSD and other minority operating systems? A company named Tech Source will try to make it happen. You can download the preliminary specs for the card here (pdf). The project, though a commercial one, wants to become a true community project and encourages experts and everyone who have good ideas to add to the development process to join the mailing list. You can also sign a petition and tell how much you would be willing to pay for the final product."
[+]
Hardware: SHA-1 Cracking On A Budget 92 comments
cloude-pottier writes "An enterprising individual went on eBay and found boards with more than half a dozen Virtex II Pro FPGAs, nursed them back to life and build a SHA-1 cracker with two of the boards. This is an excellent example of recycling, as these were originally a part of a Thompson Grass Valley HDTV broadcast system. As a part of the project, the creator wrote tools designed to graph the relationships between components. He also used JTAG to make reverse engineering the organization of the FPGAs on the board more apparent. More details can be seen on the actual project page."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Pretty crappy FPGA (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Pretty crappy FPGA (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Pretty crappy FPGA (Score:5, Insightful)
Kind of appropriate considering it's basically a graphics card designed by hobbyists, don't you think? I don't think a Virtex is the best choice, either: it uses a lot of power and has an onboard PowerPC core that wouldn't really be that useful. Any graphics card implemented on FPGAs will use a lot of power for relatively poor performance. To compete, you'll need enough orders to get your design fab'ed by TSMC or someone.
Parent
Re:Pretty crappy FPGA (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Pretty crappy FPGA (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Pretty crappy FPGA (Score:5, Informative)
What most people seem to have overlooked is that this isn't an expensive video card. It's a midrange FPGA development card, that happens to be suitable for prototyping video card functionality. It is NOT intended that average users or even power users would buy this to use it as a video card.
The plan is that this card will be used for development of the logic for a video card, which will then be realized in an ASIC in order to produce actual video cards.
Parent
Re:Pretty crappy FPGA (Score:5, Insightful)
So, um, yeah... Xilinx.
Parent
Re:Pretty crappy FPGA (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Pretty crappy FPGA (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
$1500 video card! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:$1500 video card! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:$1500 video card! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A) Open source video card which uses a PCI[-X] port...
B) Build a new gaming rig (MB, Q6600, 2GB DDR3, GeForce 8800 GTS, etc..)
Such a difficult choice, decisions decisions...
Re:$1500 video card! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:$1500 video card! (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it really a graphics card, or is it something that might possibly become one with the right FPGA programming.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:$1500 video card! (Score:5, Funny)
I call shenanigans!
Guess it's time to go back to my cheaper boot-legged graphics card [cf.ac.uk].
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:$1500 video card! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Except it is. (Score:5, Informative)
So, it was created to prototype a video card, and it's only practical uses are real-time video (output) processing, thus it is a video card.
Parent
Re:$1500 video card! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:$1500 video card! (Score:5, Informative)
Essentilly if you don't want the card for graphics what you get is a relatively small FPGA (one of the smaller members of the spartan 3 family which is xilinx's current low end family) on a PCI-X card. This board is way overpriced for that.
Parent
Re:$1500 video card! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:$1500 video card! (Score:5, Informative)
Yup... price of a nice GeForce and the time it takes to hack the identifier as described here [techarp.com].
Parent
PCI-X (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure what kind of architectures you could really test with this thing. It has slower memory on it than is on my motherboard. I honestly believe you could write software renderers faster than this thing.
Re:PCI-X (Score:5, Insightful)
But this 'product' makes no sense to me. They admit it is more useful at this point as an FPGA dev kit. But $1500 is a lot to plunk down for an introduction to FPGA develeopment.
This [xilinx.com] product direct from xilink makes a lot more sense for someone getting started. Ok, it only has 128MB instead of 256M, a single VGA port instead of dual DVI and a smaller FPGA. On the upside though the cheaper board is PCIe instead of PCI-X which is getting hard to find a machine to stick it into. But it is in the same family and when ya actually have a design that won't fit in the smaller part is when you should think about buying a bigger one.
Parent
why not pci-e based? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:why not pci-e based? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:why not pci-e based? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
How about reprogramming it as a CPU? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How about reprogramming it as a CPU? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Exactly the point. (Score:4, Funny)
Ricejob it is.
Parent
This is cool (Score:5, Interesting)
This card, while too expensive for me, might spur some interesting projects - cypto stuff and Ray tracing come to mind. I hope someone does something great with this.
All video cards cost this much... (Score:5, Informative)
This is not a finished product by any stretch of the imagination. These are prototypes. Back in the day prototypes were wirewrapped nightmares and they cost a lot more than $1500!
Since you ask so nicely (Score:4, Funny)
you might be getting ripped off if... (Score:5, Informative)
I guess they don't really have the board volume to get low prices. But If you want a graphics card for $1500 that's probably less functional than an NVidia commodity card, I'm not gonna stop you.
OTOH, If you're interested in FPGA programming and a novice at it, you'll want to get a MUCH MUCH MUCH cheaper Spartan board (like 50 to 150). See http://digilentinc.com/ [digilentinc.com] for good starter boards.
If you're serious about FPGA programming (or just willing to pay $1500 to $3000) you will definitely want to get a board with a Virtex or Stratix on board:
http://www.xilinx.com/products/devkits/HW-V5-ML501-UNI-G.htm [xilinx.com]
If you want to have it on PCIx:
http://www.xilinx.com/products/devkits/HW-V5-ML555-G.htm [xilinx.com]
You can also get FPGAs socketted for AMD's Hypertransport bus and Intel's FSB:
http://xtremedatainc.com/ [xtremedatainc.com] (Altera FPGAs)
http://drccomputer.com/ [drccomputer.com] (Xilinx FPGAs)
http://nallatech.com/ [nallatech.com]
http://celoxica.com/ [celoxica.com]
(some of these vendors also sell PCI solutions)
FPGA programming environments still mostly suck. it's a market impeded by proprietary standards and a whole lot of NP-Hard algorithms. We're working on it...
Re:you might be getting ripped off if... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:you might be getting ripped off if... (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I think this is great. Once they reach the stage of being able to compete with a low-end Nvidia/ATI on features and price, I would consider buying one. The cards could be optimised to work with whatever operating system you would be running on the machine, and would be guaranteed to have no driver compatibility issues.
I hope they are successful with this and can move into other areas. An open soundcard would also be very nice to have.
Parent
Re:you might be getting ripped off if... (Score:4, Informative)
my point is that there are a dirth of FPGA boards with better cost/performance value that could be used to prototype a graphics rendering FPGA system. Physical hardware isn't the limiting factor to an open source graphics card; the open source FPGA 3-D rendering code is the real missing piece. In fact, making a board was probably a distraction for this project because by the time the firmware is ready for real graphics workloads the FPGA on-board will be obsolete.
Here's some examples of 3-D engines for FPGA from the 6.111 lab at MIT:
3-D Pong (using rasterization):
http://web.mit.edu/6.111/www/s2006/PROJECT/7/main.html [mit.edu]
Ray Tracing:
http://web.mit.edu/6.111/www/s2007/PROJECTS/5/main.html [mit.edu]
There are hundreds of videos and code for FPGA projects up at http://web.mit.edu/6.111 [mit.edu] (see project appendices for code).
Parent
I'd like to see more general use (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm concerned about the shelf-life after I'm done tinkering.
I'd like an I2C bus, a few led connectors, and some magic so that I can connect a general purpose daughter board the FPGA's address bus (ie: implement USB, LAN, audio support that way). Every FPGA should be able to run as a Tanenbaum CPU [opencores.org] by law!
As far as rendering goes I can't see an FPGA being as fast as an ASIC - propagation delay is going to hammer it, and syncing will be a bitch - but I'm still interested in what it can do offline (assuming I can get a vesa console
Good luck!
Matt
Cancel the project: this is a waste of time. (Score:5, Insightful)
This project would be so much better off reverse engineering Cuda to make an open source driver than trying to make their own graphics chip. Hell, even Intel is having a very hard time getting a high-end graphics chip to work, and they've got so many more resources than this project.
Open source software works because anyone can hack on it and produce comparable stuff with zero initial investment. Hardware does not work that way. There is just way too much of an initial investment required. Even with FPGAs it's too expensive, and you're way too far behind to start with.
These people are idiots to think they can succeed here unless one of them has a 90nm fab in his or her backyard. (Sorry -- this is qualitatively different than trying to write your own OS, which is done all the time in undergrad classes.)
100 replies and nobody's mentioned Project VGA yet (Score:5, Interesting)
Card for Zealots (Score:4, Insightful)
If you really want totally open source drivers they'll be available for ATI cards in the not too distant future.
This graphics card when it finishes won't be "open source" because you won't be able to change it, it might have open specifications, and it might have a good relationship with the open source community, but the open source community is just as bad at maintaining a relationship with hardware vendors as hardware vendors are at maintaining a relationship with open source.
If you're willing to pay $1500 for your ideology that's your call, but I'd rather pay $500 and get a card that's substantially faster, and is actually programmed to do something other than diagnose itself and I don't really give a rats if the drivers are open or closed source.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Uh...not for me! (Score:5, Interesting)
If graphics programming was my thing, I so would get one. I am considering getting one regardless, if only to use it for ray tracing.
Flexible hardware + Good open source ideals = excellent product
Parent
Re:Uh...not for me! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:So far, nobody has brought up the actual value (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
I think not (Score:4, Insightful)
It looks like, basically, this thing is a $1400 prototype that OEM's could use as the basis for a consumer video card.
Can someone out there who knows more about hardware design and fab than I do tell me - once someone has come up with decent programming for an FPGA, can non-programmable, cheaper, maybe even faster, chips be fabbed? I assume that is generally how the design process works - start with an expensive, programmable chip, get the firmware correct, then mass produce non-programmable chips that are much cheaper?
Parent
Re:No open FPGA tools, though... (Score:4, Informative)
If you can find an FPGA for which there are open-source development tools, by all means please let us know about it. Meanwhile those of us that want to get actual work done with FPGAs will make do with the closed-source tools.
People routinely appear in comp.arch.fpga saying that they will write open-source FPGA development software, but none have succeeded at that yet. Perhaps the underestimate the magnitude of the problem. Xilinx has literally thousands of man years invested into developing their tools; it's not something for which one person or a small team can knock out a functional replacement in a year or two.
I try to use open-source software as much as possible, and I release much of the software I write in my spare time under the GPL, but for certain problems, open-source software just isn't going to be practical in the near term.
Parent
Re:Serious Question....Please answer if you know! (Score:5, Informative)
Don't! and I'd say that to anyone. What they are offering is a FPGA dev kit, with nothing to put on the FPGA. Yes, they've done a board design, but that's really one of the easiest bits, especially as most firms that sell the chips give you sample designs that you can stitch together.
The HDL is the key to this project, and as far as I can see they haven't produced anything beyond very basic PCI and Memory Controllers (which I'd expect to be very low performance). I looked at the same code about 2 years ago (maybe more) and it's in exactly the same state now as it was then. I say this as someone who writes VHDL / Verilog for a living and was wondering if I should contribute, but I'm not interested in carrying the whole thing myself.
If this projects manages to get a framebuffer device up and running within 5 years I'll be impressed. I think the whole project is incredibly naive, and doesn't understand the scale of the project they're trying to do
Parent