Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Progressing Toward Full Support for OpenGL 3.0 in Mac OS X 10.6.3
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Looks like OpenGL 2 only: http://www.amd.com/us/products/desk...ac-pc/Pages/ati-radeon-hd-3800-mac-specs.aspx (about halfway down the page)
Preliminary support for OpenGL 3.0 drivers weren't ready for another 5 months.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display_amd64_180.22.html
OpenGL 3.2 support didn't enter until this past December on Nvidia GPUs.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display_amd64_190.53.html
Apple, in one .6.x release will have their drivers up to the current solutions for both Nvidia and AMD.
That will be the culmination of work done over the past 3 years.
Anyone bashing DirectX is a fanboy, plain and simple.
I'm a former OpenGL developer, and the Khronos Group ROYALLY screwed up the release of GL3.
They basically decided to please CAD developers instead of game developers when they released GL3.
Originally they promised to rewrite the state-based model of OpenGL into an object-based model. They didn't.
DirectX (Direct3D) is object-based, and there are many benefits (performance and others) that arise from an object-based system.
Hell, geometry shaders in GL were STILL an extension until a few months ago. Geometry shaders have been in hardware for YEARS nowAnyone saying that you should just use the extensions has never been bitten in the ass by different GPU vendors supporting extensions to varying degrees. I recall one experience where I needed functionality (fp16 blending of framebuffers) and I couldn't even query the hardware via GL to see if the functionality was supported in hardware. I sent an email to the developer relations of ATi and their response was to maintain a list of cards that support it(!)...
GL is so messed up, its really sad now. It could have been AWESOME. Khronos told us it would be
OpenGL 3.1 rolled out the object model and it's been extended in OpenGL 3.2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL#OpenGL_3.2
Instead of sending you to the OpenGL specs I figured Wiki can summarize their changes more rapidly.
Imagination Technologies announces POWERVR SGX545 graphics IP core w/OpenGL3.2/OpenCL
http://www.khronos.org/news/press/r...ces-powervr-sgx545-graphics-ip-core-with-ope/
I already posted this last week on AppleInsider.
There is a reason Apple is getting it's software stacks sewn up to leverage OpenGL 3.2/OpenCL1.0 together, across all markets they play in.
Nvidia is currently the only vendor with OpenCL1.0 not ready inside their GPGPUs for general consumption. It's still in beta.
http://www.khronos.org/news/press/r...ces-powervr-sgx545-graphics-ip-core-with-ope/
I already posted this last week on AppleInsider.
There is a reason Apple is getting it's software stacks sewn up to leverage OpenGL 3.2/OpenCL1.0 together, across all markets they play in.
Nvidia is currently the only vendor with OpenCL1.0 not ready inside their GPGPUs for general consumption. It's still in beta.
I'm going to be the devils advocate.
Do they have higher end solution. Its not like Apple will bother making a multitude of Kexts when they can get the same from a low-end solution available at time of making. I'm going to put good money on discrete solution from the 5XXX series due to be released soon than this dead end. I Mean, because they have to use Intel Chipsets anyway or move to AMD, why would they use the Imagination tech when the HD5250 would most likely be released whenever they update the iMacs next. It would most likely have better performance and would be easier to write drivers for.
I'm pretty sure you need to actually write your software in OpenGL 3.0 to take advantage of the benefits.
Any DX10 GPU should support OpenGL 3.0, except Intel GMAs. Basically ATI HD2xxx and nVidia 8xxx and up.
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/16080
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/16323
nVidia added official OpenGL 3.0 support for Windows and Linux in December 2008 and ATI followed in January 2009. So it's been more than a year on other platforms.
I think geometry shaders were promoted to core in OpenGL 3.2.
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/17701
nVidia actually added official OpenGL 3.2 support for Windows and Linux in October 2009. It was ATI that released official OpenGL 3.2 support in December 2009.
So has it actually been confirmed that 10.6.3 will bring full support for OpenGL 3.2 rather than just OpenGL 3.0? Because while this leaked screenshot confirms OpenGL 3.0 is on the way and some progress has been made on OpenGL 3.2, it doesn't show any progress since Leopard on OpenGL 3.1. In fact, on my older MacBook Pro with the X1600 and 10.5.8, I'm still getting 1/8 OpenGL 3.1 extensions supported (ARB_texture_rectangle) which is the same as the leaked screenshot.
It may happen when the Windows world is using 6870s or 7870s. By time I could use a 3870 on my Intel Mac Pro the Windows/Linux world had been using the 487 for a few months. We need to get Mac support up to the current shipping version, not 1 or 2 versions late like now. But then with Apple emphasis so much on the iPod/iPhone area the Mac is lucky to continue.
I think given the length of the HD5870 and the cost, the HD5850 is more likely. I do hope that Apple adopts the HD 5000 series though, seeing it is the latest tech. The GPUs will likely be refreshed when the Gulftown Mac Pros roll out which seems likely to occur before Fermi arrives in any numbers.
I expect it will be available when the 7870 comes out for twice as much as the PC card. There will then be a 2000 post thread about flashing the PC version to run in the MacPro sometime when the Mayan calender blows up or Al Gore's personal carbon footprint exceeds that of Rwanda, which ever comes first.
edit: I see heistax beat me to it. Nice to know it's not merely a personal notion of mine.
Why does Apple hate modern, high performance video cards?
No necessarily, when the new Mac Pros were released the 4XXX series was the latest at the time. Granted it was the 4870 but the 4870 and 4890 have little performance difference to begin with.
DirectX is not just a small part of Windows that can just be licensed, it is pretty much how most things from on screen graphics through to audio is handled. It would be almost impossible to just put it into OS X without loads of problems troubles and unwanted side effects.
FYI most Mac ports are native binaries. Every game from Feral has been a native Macintosh binary I think the only people how try and emulate are Transgaming with the Cider powered games.
Edwin
I do hope that it becomes the default GPU on MacBook's - because right now if it contains NVIDIA I am avoiding it like the plague. If it means that in the future it forces me to purchase a Windows machine then so be it - the last thing I want to be lumped with is another piece of crap from NVIDIA that continuously breaks down because of poor quality control at Nvidia's end.
Yes, companies like Aspyr and Feral Interactive are actually porting the game over natively, but it's still not going to run as well as the native game. From what I understand, they have to convert the game from DirectX to OpenGL which are 2 very different animals. It's probably not an easy task, and then it's probably not an easy task to optimize so that it runs as well as it's Windows counterpart.
Call of Duty 4 runs pretty dang well for a port, but it's nowhere near the Windows version when you turn on Shadows and Specular Map.
Like I said before... in Windows COD4, I get a constant 60fps (vsync on) with ALL of the graphics settings cranked as high as they go and 4x AA, but on the Mac version, I have to turn off Shadows, AA, Specular Map, Lighting Effects and Glow in order to have it run at 60fps, but even with those settings off, there are still a few maps that still bring my framerate down to 30fps out in big open areas. For the most part, the Mac version is good, but the PC version is GREAT.
I blame it on the developers who ported it from DirectX to OpenGL. If the game was originally written in OpenGL, it would have run the same on both platforms because there would be nothing to translate to the Mac OS except for the app package and a few other things (in order to get the game to launch in OS X).
That's is close enough to the truth, although other things like the performance levels and supported features of OpenGL on Mac (compared to OpenGL on Windows), no direct access to the graphics hardware (unlike Windows) and the range of OS versions and cards we need to support also cause extra work and effort when porting.
Things like the new 3.0 support is great but it assumes the user has 10.6.3 installed and a compatible card, you cannot port a game assuming all the users will have the latest version of the latest operating system with a high end card. Because of this new features can take a while before they can be used in a new game as they need to become standard across enough machines before you can use them.
Although GL (Graphics) is an important part of a games code other items like Audio, Physics, Threading etc are all done differently on a Mac so if everyone suddenly used GL ports would not suddenly become easy and instantly run quickly.
Edwin
For the same reason they hate the idea of games polluting the Mac platform. Which is to say, nobody but Steve Jobs has a f***ing clue.
I didn't mean to imply that they'd run quickly, but once they're set up and running, the performance would be very close to the PC version.
Also, the other day I had this awesome idea. When a game goes full screen in Mac OS X, is the rest of Quartz Extreme/Core UI running? If so, doesn't that degrade performance because then the card is running Quartz Extreme/Core UI as well as the game? I mean, that stuff is probably using up some of the VRAM on the GPU so the game has less to work with, right? What if Apple made it so that Quartz Extreme and Core UI turn off before a game starts so you're left with the maximum ability of the card when you're in a full screen game?
Perhaps I'm completely wrong... I don't design or port games, so I don't know.
Anyone bashing DirectX is a fanboy, plain and simple.
I'm a former OpenGL developer, and the Khronos Group ROYALLY screwed up the release of GL3.
They basically decided to please CAD developers instead of game developers when they released GL3.
Originally they promised to rewrite the state-based model of OpenGL into an object-based model. They didn't.
DirectX (Direct3D) is object-based, and there are many benefits (performance and others) that arise from an object-based system.
Hell, geometry shaders in GL were STILL an extension until a few months ago. Geometry shaders have been in hardware for YEARS now
GL is so messed up, its really sad now. It could have been AWESOME. Khronos told us it would be
Pretty much what I've heard too. DirectX has Microsoft fully behind it with support, documentation, consistently released drivers, an actual development staff, huge support by virtually every card maker out there, and a library of games that will make your head spin. OpenGL, from what I've read, has a shoddy documentation through their website, random help articles online, random forum/blog posts, and is overall more difficult to develop for.
And it's not like Apple is has exactly been amazing at pushing for gaming on OS X either.
Khronos Needs to be shot. I wish a accountable OSS or Standards company like RedHat would look after OpenXX. Hell even AMD/nVidia.
Same goes for W3C. Make a damned video standard already.
Until OpenGL has sense of Direction it will always be the Workstation Standard.
Some of that info is crap. The author states that GL supports new features faster via extensions. Which is a crap statement because using extensions in shipping code is dangerous.
If you focus on the core api, directx had geometry shaders years before the GL core did. I wish it was the opposite.