OS X doesn't support OpenGL 4!
Here's something that I discovered accidentally: OS X doesn't support OpenGL 4! All you get is 3.2, which was recently supported through Lion. WTF Apple?!? Support for the latest OpenGL version supported on your GPU is something you take for granted on any other OS. I don't think Apple even sells a computer that doesn't have an OpenGL 4.0 capable GPU, so there's really no excuse for this. I was looking forward to getting a new MacBook Pro or Air and playing around with the tessellation shaders and writeable memory buffers, but that will only be possible if running Windows or Linux on it.
Comments
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1406166
We get a few refugees from other Mac forums here.
I agree with you entirely, I think it's very poor that Apple doesn't support OpenGL 4 considering it's been available for 2 years.
http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/showthread.php/177972-We-want-decent-GPU-OpenGL-Mac-OS-X-support-initiative
If it had minor improvements, it would be different but hardware tessellation is huge and not just for games. 3D apps would be able to properly preview displacements:
[VIDEO]
Sadly, Apple works to their own schedule on this stuff so we'll never know when support is coming. I personally think 2 years is appalling to be behind in support of an industry standard, especially when every machine they ship (even the HD 4000) is compatible.
We'll see if it arrives in Mountain Lion next week but I can't find any mention of OpenGL 4 support online, it seems it will ship with 3.2. There are suggestions that the graphics versions are causing older models to not be supported:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/07/confirmed-mountain-lion-sends-some-64-bit-macs-gently-into-that-good-night/
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/02/whats-keeping-mountain-lion-off-of-some-64-bit-macs/
but I don't see why they can't use different drivers.
The latest version of OpenGL should be supported on the latest machines, no matter what workaround it requires.
Thanks for the reply, my thread on macrumors got deleted for some reason, so I started a new one
I've posted a bug report about this (not that they don't know about it, just trying to do *something* about it), problem id 11915692.
The reason I'm so worked up about this is that I just came across it by accident, it did not even cross my mind that the driver would not expose all hardware features. I was thinking about getting a MacBook Air, since even the HD 4000 will support hw tessellation, just to get my feet wet and try it out.
I installed OpenGL extensions viewer on a MacBook Pro Retina in an apple store today, just to confirm that tessellation was not exposed through an extension, and it really wasn't. OpenGL 3.2 wasn't even fully supported, with some extensions missing.
You'll find that unless people can see a direct link with something they care about, they won't bother. If they knew it put OpenGL at feature parity with DirectX 11 and could persuade developers to make fewer Windows-exclusive applications, they'd probably be more interested. OpenGL 4.1 has a lot of good things:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/07/khronos-group-releases-opengl-41-claims-to-leapfrog-direct3d-11/
Full compatibility between OpenGL ES so iOS/OS X porting is easier. Protection for WebGL for 3D browser graphics.
According to a writer on arstechnica, it shouldn't be long:
"This one is playing catch-up to Windows and Linux and it's pretty sad that we were stuck with GL 2.1 for as long as we were. The good news is that we won't be waiting as long for GL 4.1 support (I have personal spy drones in the right places)."
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/07/does-apple-still-care-about-creative-pros/2/
That was a year ago though so who knows. Since OpenGL 3.2 arrived with Lion, I'd have expected 4.1 with Mountain Lion. It makes sense to do it at a major OS release so that everyone is at the same version and with all their hardware supported, there's no reason not to.
Nothing to say. Most probably above discussion make a good result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
re stuck with GL 2.1 for as long as we were. The good news is that we won't be waiting as long for GL 4.1 support (I have personal spy drones in the right places)."
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/07/does-apple-still-care-about-creative-pros/2/
That was a year ago though so who knows. Since OpenGL 3.2 arrived with Lion, I'd have expected 4.1 with Mountain Lion. It makes sense to do it at a major OS release so that everyone is at the same version and with all their hardware supported, there's no reason not to.
Whenever I've read about this, the concern seemed to be still not the latest version and would require rewriting 10s of thousands of lines of code in larger applications to implement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Whenever I've read about this, the concern seemed to be still not the latest version and would require rewriting 10s of thousands of lines of code in larger applications to implement.
This seems to be a common misconception. Supporting OpenGL 4 simply means adding the missing functions and definitions to the API, no need to rewrite anything. It would simply not affect any other part of the system whatsoever.
Quote:
'm sure it's like 4.1 with 4.3 support coming when OpenGL 5.0 is out for 3 years. [/bitter]
I'm glad it's finally arriving so I can at least look at some of the cool Direct3D 11 demos.
Edit: Damn... I hate being right. 4.1 fully supported, but 4.2 is partial support and 4.3 is completely MIA -http://forums.macrumors.com/attachme...5&d=1370906414
http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/185721-OpenGL-4-for-Mac-)
https://www.change.org/petitions/apple-os-x-10-9-support-opengl-4-3-and-zfs
Marv', so Mavericks only has 4.1 support? Partial 4.2? And 'AWOL' 4.3?! Sounds like GL 4.3 would give us Direct 11 feature parity?
And what of Open Gl 5.0?
Should we be grateful we're FINALLY on 4.0?
Lemon Bon Bon.
I see no reference to OpenGL 5... anywhere on the Internet, much less in OS X.
Considering Apple makes some use of GL in everything from the iPhone to Macs why don't they have the latests version sooner.
Aren't Open GL and GL pivotal to what they do?
*looks at the emphasis on GPU in iPhone and the forthcoming Pro Vader Mac...
Have they only got 1 guy programming the Mac GL drivers for Apple? :P
Lemon Bon Bon.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/07/does-apple-still-care-about-creative-pros/2/
Interesting that the laggardly ness of not offering the latest support is getting in the way of Pro's getting their work done?
Makes sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
4.1 is 100%, 4.2 is 13%, and 4.3 is 0% in Mavericks DP1.
I see no reference to OpenGL 5... anywhere on the Internet, much less in OS X.
*nods. I read that re: 4.1 at 100%.
Will they fully implement 4.3 at 100% for the final release of Mavericks? Or will it come in successive updates to Mavericks after?
I'm not a programmer type. But I've always been interested in the dance of GPUs and Open GL on the Macs. (I guess in part to the fuss always made about Direct X and 'gaming' on Windows...etc.) But as the creative machine GL and 3D creation has an important part to play.
We've always had good 3D apps on the Mac. Lightwave (I have it...), Cinema, Maya etc. Mari is significant ported in just a week. I read it needed Apple to be on 4x GL drivers to port over?
It was interesting to read that Open GL 4.3 will give feature parity with M$'s Direct 'X' (11?) For games and software ports that are increasingly coming to the Mac not insignificant as the Mac stares down the tunnel of 100 million installed base in the next year or so. Not only that, GL 4.1 and 4.3 will show off the new Mac Pro to it's fullest as well, I'm guessing. Will we finally be in a planets aligning position of:
1. Cutting Edge Pro specs on Cpus, memory and SSD and external ports...
2. Dual GPUS ('SLI' for the 1st time?) and the best GPUS for the 1st time...AND
3. The latest Open GL 4.1 (4.3?) implementations?
Holy toledo! All by the fall? It seems like some kind of wild dream...are we about to finally overtake Windows on all 3 fronts in these areas instead of lagging?
Anybody who can add to the GL discussion, my thanks.
I just find it interesting.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I remember my 1st GPU on my Power Mac. No Open GL there. Only Quickdraw 3D... *Looks.
Cheered when Apple backed Open GL and brought it to the Mac in 'Os X' in a big way.
Lemon Bon Bon.
A further point, if Apple hired a THX sound 'Tzar' do they have one for graphics and stuff like GL?
Surely? :P
Lemon Bon Bon.
I think 4.1 is fine. 4.3 has things like compute shaders:
http://wili.cc/blog/opengl-cs.html
but compute can be done with OpenCL. Version 4.1 has feature parity with DX11. I doubt there will be a need for OpenGL 5 anytime soon. Heavy computation and any kind of complex shading, raytracing etc can be done in OpenCL, the geometry manipulation like tessellation should be done by OpenGL.
The Pixar guy mentioned something about targeting OpenGL 3.2 for MARI, which would have to be done to support older systems and that's the base requirements. 4.0 is required for displacements:
http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/mari/system-requirements/
"Displacement preview is currently only available on the cards and drivers that support OpenGL 4.0 or newer."
Pixar has tools that use tessellation for hair previews so that's really the big feature and supported in 4.1.
Yeah, we had Nanosaur when everyone else was playing Half-Life.
I got all the eggs but cried myself to sleep.
I see there being a possibility that 4.2 gets to 100% before GM, but not 4.3. Maybe 25% of 4.3.
Quote:
Yeah, we had Nanosaur when everyone else was playing Half-Life.
I'm sure you played Half Life 2 on the Mac when it finally arrived? (Half Life 2. The best 1st person game ever in my view. Though I was a fan of Marathon on MacOS8.5...)
Quote:
but compute can be done with OpenCL. Version 4.1 has feature parity with DX11. I doubt there will be a need for OpenGL 5 anytime soon. Heavy computation and any kind of complex shading, raytracing etc can be done in OpenCL, the geometry manipulation like tessellation should be done by OpenGL.
I see. So Open Cl can compliment any 'holes' as 4.x makes its way to 4.3. Glad to hear 4.1 has feature parity with DirectX 11.
Thanks for the thoughts, Marv' and Tal'.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
Yeah, we had Nanosaur when everyone else was playing Half-Life.
Wasn't it Sierra On Line (publisher?) who spat their dummy out over the Mac port? On...then off...then on...then off again port?
Lemon Bon Bon.
Yeah, Half-Life 2 was great, I think I played Episode 1 or 2 on the Mac to see how it performed and if it looked the same as the Windows version. It was good to see all of the nice effects were there on the Mac side. It was hard to judge performance as it was an old game so runs fine maxed out anyway.
What will really put it to the test is a Battlefield 3 or 4 port. Dice still has the job ad up for Mac engineers:
http://dice.se/jobs/mac-os-x-engineer/
but it's just a port. If the engine has been built well enough, that job might only take a few weeks like it did for MARI.
Pretty much. Not the performance optimisations and things that they bring in but the flexibility, which is important. The more that APIs become fully fledged, the less need there is for the latest and greatest. OpenGL 4 + OpenCL 1.2 covers pretty much everything required for post-production quality rendering. There are a few anti-aliasing methods floating around, FXAA, MLAA, CSAA, SMAA, SSAA:
http://www.iryoku.com/smaa/
so maybe they'll have a standard one eventually in OpenGL that requires an update but even then, Retina displays (as long as the games are native) negate some need for anti-aliasing because the pixels are so small and again, this is just a performance thing.
This is the first time it has matched DX 11. DX 9-10 would have been matched with 3.x. Here's OpenGL 4 vs DX 11:
[VIDEO]
Tessellation and effects all match up. DX11 is slightly ahead in performance there but only by a couple of FPS.