AMD Adds OpenGL 3.0 Support To Graphics Drivers 102
arcticstoat writes "Just a few months after The Khronos Group unveiled the Open GL 3.0 spec last year, AMD has included full support for the new API in its first WHQL driver of 2009 — Catalyst 9.1. OpenGL 3.0 requires DirectX 10-level hardware, such as AMD's Radeon HD series of GPUs. However, unlike Direct3D 10, OpenGL 3.0's features can be enabled on both Windows XP and Vista, as well as Linux and Mac OS, which could be a bonus for game developers looking for a broad base of customers. The Khronos Group claims that OpenGL 3.0 has a 'rough feature parity' with Direct3D 10, and it provides Shader Model 4.0 support, including features such as the Geometry Shader. The Khronos Group also says that the new API will interoperate with the GPGPU API OpenCL, which could allow OpenGL 3.0 to compete with the Compute Shader promised in Microsoft's DirectX 11 API."
nvidia released OGL 3.0 drivers last month (Score:3, Interesting)
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/opengl_3_driver.html [nvidia.com]
Now where's Intel? :p
hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
The Khronos Group claims that OpenGL 3.0 has a 'rough feature parity' with Direct3D 10
If by that you mean, kinda has the same functionality but it's hidden under piles of legacy crap, then yes ok... But let's just call a spade a spade - It's OpenGL 2.2, not OpenGL3.0. If you spend an hour or two with D3D 10 it becomes apparent pretty that there's a pretty big gulf between the two API's.
My biggest gripe with OpenGL at the moment is that any monkey can write code using it normally following the red books as a guide. The amount of code I've got to strip out of our codebase that's all been done with fixed function immediate mode is just not very funny. I bet you any money that the GL3.0 red book will still devote large chapters to the stuff you shouldn't be using.
Sadly, if you want to write high performance openGL code, then your only real option is to refer the DX10 documentation. Find the required methods in those docs, then hunt through the GL extension registry until you find something similar. Having done that, write your lovely NV specific code. Then write an ATI specific codepath. Then write the Intel code path. It's time consuming, error prone and a real pita.
If only Khronos had done what they'd been promising for the last 2 years and turned OpenGL3.0 into the API that we've all been asking for.... I'll get excited again when the GL3.1 spec + drivers come out, and am sure to be disappointed once more, but I live in hope....
Sorry for the rant. Anyhow, thanks ATI for finally getting GL3.0 support into your drivers. Much appreciated. It's only been 6 months since the spec was released....
Re:waiting game (Score:5, Interesting)
I am almost sure Apple will be hurrying to implement them under OS X. OS X had very early OpenGL 2.x support, very silently with a OS X update. They try to use whatever available as you probably know, for desktop acceleration and CoreImage etc.
Interestingly my low end NV5200 had OpenGL 2.x support just with a system update. While on it, here is the tool I get such details and benchmark/test them: http://www.realtech-vr.com/glview/version3.html [realtech-vr.com]
Re:hmm (Score:2, Interesting)
Sane people working on more modest 3D projects should be using OGRE [ogre3d.org]. It's a joy to work with, it's fast, and it's written by really smart people who know OpenGL, Direct3D, and graphics hardware in and out.
And if you *are* developing AAA games, aren't there high-quality, cutting-edge, cross-platform engines [emergent.net] you can buy? You still need to know how the 3D software and hardware work. And you still have to write shaders yourself. But let someone else take care of the details.
Re:waiting game (Score:3, Interesting)
What the GP was saying is correct--most pstriple developers write the pushbuffer directly, instead of using the OGL:ES implementation.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)