Mesa Finally An OpenGL Implementation (On Intel Hardware) 80
Mesa 3D has famously always not been technically OpenGL (lacking certification), but times are changing: "This is a great day for Mesa and open-source graphics drivers. Just a tad over a month ago, I submitted OpenGL ES 2.0 conformance test results to Khronos for Intel Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge GPUs with Mesa 8.0.4. There were no objections during the 30 day review period, so we are now officially conformant! Finally being on that list is pretty cool. Not only is this great news for my team at Intel, but it's terrific news for Mesa. Mesa has had a long history with OpenGL, the ARB, and Khronos. This is, however, the first time that Mesa has ever, in any way, been listed as a conformant implementation. This is a big boost to Mesa's credibility."
What is Mesa? (Score:5, Interesting)
I never really understood what Mesa was. I thought it was what you installed if you wanted software rendering of OpenGL. If you wanted hardware rendering, you installed drivers for your hardware. But now Mesa is providing hardware accelerated OpenGL? What's the point if we have open source Intel drivers?
I don't get it.
Re:Credibility? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to be a jerk but.... Does anyone really think of Intel bestowing credibility in the graphics realm?
In terms of raw performance? No.
In terms of stability and compatibility? Yes. Keep in mind, Intel is the largest provider of x86 graphics hardware in the world.
Re:Credibility? (Score:4, Interesting)
Intel graphics are fairly respectable these days. Still far behind AMD but not a joke any more.
Re:Credibility? (Score:4, Interesting)
The older stuff, yes.
Those new core i3/i5/i7 CPU's : the integrated graphics have become VERY potent.
And yes, I have an i5 that comes with HD Graphics 3000 so I should know.
In fact, I also have an Nvidia NVS 4200M sitting in my Dell Lattitude that automatically kicks in when I require 3D stuff (read : games) and battery is not a concern. So for fun I started AION on the Intel hardware goofed around a bit, closed the application and then started it up again but on the Nvidia hardware (easy thanks to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_Optimus [wikipedia.org]). Im not saying AION is the new standard to test things on, but for a 3D game it looks good (lots of details & eye-candy) and I simply happen to have it on my machine. (1680x1050 btw, I had the settings on automatic)
To be honest I'm a bit shocked to notice they both look VERY alike. The nvidia picture seems to have more hmm 'powerful colours' (?) while the intel gfx were a bit more washed out but then again seemed to have less visible edges (AA?) though some of the effects looked 'simplified'.
Otherwise, both maintained a steady 45+ fps which is more than good enough for me. wow.
If you're more of a numbers guy, feel free to compare yourself :
* http://community.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu/NVIDIA+NVS+4200M/ [futuremark.com]
* http://community.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu/Intel+HD+Graphics+3000+Mobile [futuremark.com]
Seems they come pretty close to each other and the difference in DirectX version supported might explain the noticed difference in effects. They were still there, but just slightly less... hmm... complex.
Sure there are a lot more powerful dedicated gfx cards around (hey, laptop here!), but trust me when I say that for 95% of the market, these integrated graphics are more than sufficient ! If you're in the 5% of users that 'needs' a powerful 3D processor, then by all means do; but claiming all Intel IGP's are a piece of shit is like saying that you don't have a decent printer if you don't go for the Xerox iGen 150 !
Re:Great (Score:4, Interesting)
If Intel keeps up the pace, and nvidia/ati don't want to start loosing market, they'd better follow the example.
Intel is already taking over the medium-end market for non-gamers, and low-end market for gamers. Especially due to the huge power saving differences.