Parallel Mesa 59
An anonymous reader writes "Some French students have started to code a parallel version of Mesa 3.0 (PMesa).
They can reach a very good speedup (between 1.2 and 1.8). " SMP and OpenGL?
Neato. That Mesa Quake thing is looking smoother all the time.
X (and svgalib) aren't involved here. (Score:1)
X (and svgalib) aren't involved here. (Score:1)
Hmm... another reason to build an SMP box (Score:1)
X (and svgalib) aren't involved here. (Score:1)
VGA card not required (Score:1)
BeOS (Score:1)
I've run the BeOS GLteapot (software) demo on my Duel PII-450.
With no other programs running BeOS's CPU monitor "pulse" reports one processor at 100% and the other at 0%. When I start another program, or even just move the mouse, the teapot load seems to jump back and forth between both cpu's.
I'd assumed that this showed that the BeOS software renderer was single threaded.
Hardware (Score:1)
If they want to work on paralell Mesa, let them do so, so it's ready when a manufacturer gets a clue and releases specs.
voodoo 2 (Score:1)
What the heck are you talking about? (Score:1)
Yes yes yes yes!!! (Score:1)
I don't see any reason why everything shouldn't be SMP nowdays.
But SMP *is* more economical. (Score:1)
You could fork out $700 for a pentium III, or you could plug another $80 Celeron 300a into your SMP board. (mine was only $100 more than a regular PII board)
cat
-- 600 bogomips thankyouverymuch.
Know what would be cool? (Score:1)
Rasterman? Are you listening?
It supports both software AND hardware rendering.. (Score:1)
Mesa is much faster than SGI's own code (Score:1)
Anyway, this can be easily demonstrated by linking the same program with Mesa or with OpenGL on an SGI Irix machine. If you then run them both: well yes, of course the hardware is faster, but try a program that uses something that the hardware does not do (on mine, any texture mapping) and you will see that Mesa's software emulation is MANY TIMES faster than SGI's.
Perhaps SGI purposely maimed theirs to encourage people to buy more hardware, but I really suspect the reason is that the software writers there are not as good as the ones who work on Open Source.
SMP & Mesa (Score:1)
Hardware (Score:1)
on the cpu to feed it the data to display.
Indeed for many accelerator cards the CPU
not the card is the bottleneck as even
the the fastest CPUs cant really supply
enough data to max out a top end accelerator.
Thus adding a second CPU to the mix can
offer a massive speedup. I cant wait
to get home and try this on the dual PII 400.
If only Mesa supported RivaTNT (Score:1)
If only Mesa supported RivaTNT's... the graphics
processors on those could probably do a good
amount of graphics churning.
all PCI/AGP slots in a system were RivaTNT's...
heehee...
RivaTnT Render farm? Nah...
- Wing
- Reap the fires of the soul.
- Harvest the passion of life.
It's true. (Score:1)
BeOS (Score:1)
X (and svgalib) aren't involved here. (Score:1)
Likewise, you can have a dual-headed display. One card and monitor for regular 2d stuff like X, and a voodoo with a different monitor for 3d. In this setup...it should be obvious that the 2d card has no effect on the output of the second(3d) monitor. hence...you only need a 2d card to do 2d stuff...you don't need one for 3d voodoo.
or something like that...sorry that was kinda long winded....i've been at work far too long...I'm going home.
Quake3 will have threading--> Good for SMP (Score:1)
If only Mesa supported RivaTNT (Score:1)
by Creative Labs to do the linux driver work.
He told me that he'd like to see all cards
supported but can't imagine Creative Labs will
pay him to help out the competition, and fair
'nuff I suppose.
Yes yes yes yes!!! (Score:1)
And the typical graphical web browser could certainly benefit from multithreading...
Hardware (Score:1)