OpenGL 3.2 released: AMD demos OpenCL on 24 Cores

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 20
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,271member
    That was fast, compared to how slow OpenGL development had become.
  • Reply 2 of 20
    bertpbertp Posts: 274member
    I was surprised that OpenCL spans multiple CPUs and CPU cores as well as between a CPU and a GPU.
  • Reply 3 of 20
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,282member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    That was fast, compared to how slow OpenGL development had become.



    Definitely. OpenGL has finally reached the point people wanted it to be 18 months prior. The new OpenGL ARB group really has dedicated themselves to getting OpenGL competitive again.
  • Reply 4 of 20
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,282member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BertP View Post


    I was surprised that OpenCL spans multiple CPUs and CPU cores as well as between a CPU and a GPU.



    That's what makes it so impressive. It also works with DSPs and much more.
  • Reply 5 of 20
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Definitely. OpenGL has finally reached the point people wanted it to be 18 months prior. The new OpenGL ARB group really has dedicated themselves to getting OpenGL competitive again.



    If only Apple showed the same kind of energy here! Even Snow Leopard does not move them much closer to any of the new OpenGL releases.



  • Reply 6 of 20
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin the Martian View Post


    If only Apple showed the same kind of energy here! Even Snow Leopard does not move them much closer to any of the new OpenGL releases.



    As a user, you don't need bleeding edge OpenGL. NOTHING is written for it! It will take a year to 18 months before the first interesting apps or games come along with Open GL 3.2 code in it. It's always been that way, and is roughly the same in the MS DX world with the odd MS title exception where MS did the title and DX upgrade in tandem to show DX off.
  • Reply 7 of 20
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Definitely. OpenGL has finally reached the point people wanted it to be 18 months prior. The new OpenGL ARB group really has dedicated themselves to getting OpenGL competitive again.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    As a user, you don't need bleeding edge OpenGL. NOTHING is written for it! It will take a year to 18 months before the first interesting apps or games come along with Open GL 3.2 code in it. It's always been that way, and is roughly the same in the MS DX world with the odd MS title exception where MS did the title and DX upgrade in tandem to show DX off.



    Then why offer ES 2.0 or OpenCL 1.0 ? There is a pretty obvious inconsistency here.



    The larger point is that Apple has fallen behind in a big way on desktop GL, while NVIDIA and AMD are keeping pace with the specification.



    From a company that prides itself on being a leader in graphics, to see Snow Leopard to ship with OpenGL 2.1 is bad news - for users and coders both.



    PS: the key thing to observe is not whatever lag time occurs between API update and application releases - it's the feature level of the API available on competing platforms. Whether it takes 6, 12, 18 months to make new titles on a new API, MS will have their DX11 API available about the same time that Snow Leopard ships with GL 2.1. That's a multiple year lag in feature set.
  • Reply 8 of 20
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin the Martian View Post


    Then why offer ES 2.0 or OpenCL 1.0 ? There is a pretty obvious inconsistency here.



    Not at all. Apple uses them in their own code. OpenCL was an Apple and Nvidia led project that was taken to Kronos and opened up to other vendors as well. The idea was very good and everyone played nicely, evidenced by AMD shipping their mappings last week. You won't see much 3rd party stuff from the AMD implementation for awhile, just like we wont see much 3rd party stuff from anyone else. But Apple and Nvidia will ship code that uses it and shows the APIs relevance, hopefully to gain a competitive advantage in the eyes of those 3rd part developers that will take another 12-18 months to ship really cool stuff.



    Quote:

    The larger point is that Apple has fallen behind in a big way on desktop GL, while NVIDIA and AMD are keeping pace with the specification.



    From a company that prides itself on being a leader in graphics, to see Snow Leopard to ship with OpenGL 2.1 is bad news - for users and coders both.



    No the graphics industry doesn't work that way. AMD(ATi) and Nvidia are the hardware GPU makers. They drive the actual implementation of the spec. If AMD and Nvidia really wanted to protest a proposed spec component, the whole ARB would take notice, because the spec is useless if it won't be implemented in transistors. So, much of the spec is actually running on Nvidia/AMD GPUs well before the spec itself gets ratified. Matter of fact, much of the OpenGL technical advancement is documentation and standardization of work AMD and Nvidia have already implemented in future chip designs-- NOT the other way around.



    As for the Apple frameworks being behind, that's true, but a red herring for advanced developers. Leading edge developers are working directly with AMD and Nvidia development kits, not OS X or Windows native APIs. Titles that ship are all targeted for ~3 year old hardware at "average" fidelity settings!!! The high fidelity settings are generally targeted at hardware that is expected to be a year old on shipping. Yes a AAA game is designed to run on what a bleeding edge gamer considers obsolete! The have to for market share and installed base realities!



    Quote:

    PS: the key thing to observe is not whatever lag time occurs between API update and application releases - it's the feature level of the API available on competing platforms. Whether it takes 6, 12, 18 months to make new titles on a new API, MS will have their DX11 API available about the same time that Snow Leopard ships with GL 2.1. That's a multiple year lag in feature set.



    Just a continuation of the red herring. The AAA cross platform game (or CAD/3D Authoring app) will ship with all the appropriate libraries carried internally. NOT linking against OS provided frameworks. The lack of not having bleeding edge API exposure in OS APIs will have the most effect on small indy coders who don't have the experience level yet to build based on hardware vendor libraries, or coders who want to write in "Pure Cocoa".



    I agree there is a lag compared to DX releases, but I really don't care one whit. A DX developer has absolutely zero intention of writing an OS X application. Not because the API feature sets are lagging, but because they long ago made the explicit decision to forgo cross platform development. Everything after that justifying why they chose that road based on "spec advancement" is just prevarication.



    In the end the OpenGL implementations are catching back up to the DX implementations because AMD and Nvidia are getting along professionally in a manner that Nvidia and an independent ATi weren't several years ago. That disfunction was partially responsible for the absolute train wreck that the original OpenGL 3.0 spec was. [If you were Apple, would you hurry up to implement a train wreck standard???] Both vendors are now mature enough to see that they would rather lead graphics development compared to the current bullying they endure by MS on whether their GPUs meet MS's feature upgrade timetable, where MS only has to write up their wishlist, I mean standard, in MS word, not actually lay transistors.
  • Reply 9 of 20
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    Not at all. Apple uses them in their own code. OpenCL was an Apple and Nvidia led project that was taken to Kronos and opened up to other vendors as well. The idea was very good and everyone played nicely, evidenced by AMD shipping their mappings last week. You won't see much 3rd party stuff from the AMD implementation for awhile, just like we wont see much 3rd party stuff from anyone else. But Apple and Nvidia will ship code that uses it and shows the APIs relevance, hopefully to gain a competitive advantage in the eyes of those 3rd part developers that will take another 12-18 months to ship really cool stuff.







    No the graphics industry doesn't work that way. AMD(ATi) and Nvidia are the hardware GPU makers. They drive the actual implementation of the spec. If AMD and Nvidia really wanted to protest a proposed spec component, the whole ARB would take notice, because the spec is useless if it won't be implemented in transistors. So, much of the spec is actually running on Nvidia/AMD GPUs well before the spec itself gets ratified. Matter of fact, much of the OpenGL technical advancement is documentation and standardization of work AMD and Nvidia have already implemented in future chip designs-- NOT the other way around.



    As for the Apple frameworks being behind, that's true, but a red herring for advanced developers. Leading edge developers are working directly with AMD and Nvidia development kits, not OS X or Windows native APIs. Titles that ship are all targeted for ~3 year old hardware at "average" fidelity settings!!! The high fidelity settings are generally targeted at hardware that is expected to be a year old on shipping. Yes a AAA game is designed to run on what a bleeding edge gamer considers obsolete! The have to for market share and installed base realities!







    Just a continuation of the red herring. The AAA cross platform game (or CAD/3D Authoring app) will ship with all the appropriate libraries carried internally. NOT linking against OS provided frameworks. The lack of not having bleeding edge API exposure in OS APIs will have the most effect on small indy coders who don't have the experience level yet to build based on hardware vendor libraries, or coders who want to write in "Pure Cocoa".



    I agree there is a lag compared to DX releases, but I really don't care one whit. A DX developer has absolutely zero intention of writing an OS X application. Not because the API feature sets are lagging, but because they long ago made the explicit decision to forgo cross platform development. Everything after that justifying why they chose that road based on "spec advancement" is just prevarication.



    In the end the OpenGL implementations are catching back up to the DX implementations because AMD and Nvidia are getting along professionally in a manner that Nvidia and an independent ATi weren't several years ago. That disfunction was partially responsible for the absolute train wreck that the original OpenGL 3.0 spec was. [If you were Apple, would you hurry up to implement a train wreck standard???] Both vendors are now mature enough to see that they would rather lead graphics development compared to the current bullying they endure by MS on whether their GPUs meet MS's feature upgrade timetable, where MS only has to write up their wishlist, I mean standard, in MS word, not actually lay transistors.



    So if Apple was five or ten years behind, that would be OK by you ? What is your pain threshold ?



    Whether or not you particularly like what shipped in GL3.0, 3.1, or 3.2, the fact remains that developers that want to get started with it have to use Windows or Linux where such drivers are available. Apple has fallen far behind.



    More to the point, GL 3.2 just starts to get to the point of exposing the majority of functionality in machines Apple has already shipped - everything with an NV8600/8800, AMD2600 or better.
  • Reply 10 of 20
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    The AAA cross platform game (or CAD/3D Authoring app) will ship with all the appropriate libraries carried internally. NOT linking against OS provided frameworks.



    Oh and by the way, this is total bullshit. If you want to draw 3D on OS X, you are talking to OpenGL. There is no other route to the hardware. And the current GL shipping on OS X doesn't expose some of the features originally seen in D3D9, never mind D3D10.



    Thus the chart. Let's keep an eye on when it's time to move the marker.
  • Reply 11 of 20
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin the Martian View Post


    Oh and by the way, this is total bullshit. If you want to draw 3D on OS X, you are talking to OpenGL. There is no other route to the hardware. And the current GL shipping on OS X doesn't expose some of the features originally seen in D3D9, never mind D3D10.



    Thus the chart. Let's keep an eye on when it's time to move the marker.



    I would think if you called utter bullshit on something you would at least have your facts right. But you don't. And well, nobody making money of OpenGL particularly cares whether you like those facts or not. Yeah, OS provided libraries are not a limitation. Developers will continue making money and continue linking against internal libraries when they desire to do so. It gives them guarantees that external changes are isolated from their code, and access to GPU vendor extensions which are not part of the OpenGL at all, not to mention access to advanced standard functionality if they really want it.
  • Reply 12 of 20
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    I would think if you called utter bullshit on something you would at least have your facts right. But you don't. And well, nobody making money of OpenGL particularly cares whether you like those facts or not. Yeah, OS provided libraries are not a limitation. Developers will continue making money and continue linking against internal libraries when they desire to do so. It gives them guarantees that external changes are isolated from their code, and access to GPU vendor extensions which are not part of the OpenGL at all, not to mention access to advanced standard functionality if they really want it.



    Name one such title on OS X.
  • Reply 13 of 20
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    As a user, you don't need bleeding edge OpenGL. NOTHING is written for it! It will take a year to 18 months before the first interesting apps or games come along with Open GL 3.2 code in it. It's always been that way, and is roughly the same in the MS DX world with the odd MS title exception where MS did the title and DX upgrade in tandem to show DX off.



    So question, how do I as a developer start writing an application that uses the new stuff in OpenGL 3+ when I can't get an implementation of it under OS X? Look at what you just wrote, there needs to be the support in the operating system for devs to start work using the new features. Marvin is exactly right that Apple needs to get in gear and start moving to the more recent specs.



    It is somewhat sad that new OpenGL 3 drivers were released almost immediately for Windows when the latest versions of OpenGL were announced. Here we are at a whole new version of the OS and to hear no OpenGL 3, that's lame.
  • Reply 14 of 20
    So what version of OpenGL does Apple ship with Leopard currently?
  • Reply 15 of 20
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post


    So what version of OpenGL does Apple ship with Leopard currently?



    ^^ see chart ^^



    OpenGL 2.1 and some extensions.
  • Reply 16 of 20
    FYI: Since Leopard has shipped, OpenGL has released OpenGL 3.0, 3.1 and finally 3.2 the first real goal of the 3 series that was so long delayed.



    I'd expect Apple to have OpenGL 3.2 ready for Snow Leopard very soon.
  • Reply 17 of 20
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin the Martian View Post


    Name one such title on OS X.



    Hiro, Hiro, where did you go ?



    Are you reading your PM's ?
  • Reply 18 of 20
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin the Martian View Post


    Hiro, Hiro, where did you go ?



    Are you reading your PM's ?



    I haven't had a PM since last September. The Visitor Messages, which is what you left, don't have any popup announcements and don't show in the PM unread total. I couldn't figure out how to reply directly.



    While I didn't sign any NDAs, I'm not commenting on who or how many. But I was at SIGGRAPH and did the applicable sessions, BOFs and more importantly - evening "Networking Opportunities".



    Frankly, I've had my say in the thread. I really don't care to be baited anymore. You don't believe me, fine.
  • Reply 19 of 20
    OK there, I guess that settles it! Thanks for clearing that up!



    So whenever a Mac developer starts using instanced rendering, or uniform buffers, or any of the other new features in OpenGL 3.2, please be sure and call attention to it!



    ( ^^ Sarcasm for the reading impaired ).



    Anyway Hiro, you haven't really done anything to support your case. I make the case that an Apple OS X developer using OpenGL faces a number of limitations compared to competitors using Linux or Windows, where a beta 3.2 driver has been available for a few weeks now. Hand waving about private libs doesn't add up to much - name one app that uses them to gain any features above what is in the OS?
  • Reply 20 of 20
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin the Martian View Post


    ^^ see chart ^^



    OpenGL 2.1 and some extensions.



    Thats what I could verify, by looking through frameworks and header files. so it is 2.1...



    Not that 3.2 will matter to my OLD graphics card 7300GT!!
Sign In or Register to comment.