It has been mentioned in various places that the Pandora will have a binary blob driver for ES 2.0, just search the forums.laxer3a said:cb88 > you were saying that the devs have said that it will be shipped with OGL-ES 2.0, do you have a link ?
Because yes, I still have no answer about where are the 2.0 driver for OMAP.
laxer3a said:cb88 > you were saying that the devs have said that it will be shipped with OGL-ES 2.0, do you have a link ?
Because yes, I still have no answer about where are the 2.0 driver for OMAP.
ok, frankly, i'm not sure what i'm saying anymore (and for sure never claimed it can perform 4 32bit ops/clock ; )Exophase said:dmdm's further post here:
http://www.gp32x.de/board/index.php?sh ... 77&st=113#
Suggests 1 operation per cycle, not 4 (which is what you guys are saying, and of course what the referenced materials imply, but they're quite vague on details). Hence my questioning of what "concurrent" really means. Also, I'm pretty skeptical that "SIMD" means anything more than 4-way 32bit operations that execute on a single unit as a single operation. Although I realize the term has been misused already by other GPUs I really doubt that it means more than this.
He also says that even more than one FP op can be done per cycle, but then goes on to use an FMAC as an example of this, so I doubt that this has any deep meaning other than the usual fused mul/add unit.
I'm assuming you're referring to 'Vertex / Triangle Ratio average = 1 vtx/tri, peak 0.5 vtx/tri'. Yup, I guess so too. And it means that they have transformed vertex cache.blu said:so here the '1 tri/clock' is the typical PR speak used to imply 1 vertex/tri ratio, which is ok.
I think the reality is 60 clocks/vertex, but there are 4 shader units, so in theoretical scenario when only vertex processing is done (all 4 shader units are doing VS) they'll get average of 15 clocks...blu said:what is bothering is the quote of 15 clocks/vertex (transform only). now, 'transform only' clearly implies a sole MVP (model-view-projection) transform operation. now, if we assume MAD (multiply-add) ops would be used to do that (and the shader units are entirely devoted to vertex work), that is 4x 4-wide MADs per vertex transformed, swizzles non-widthstanding (then again, we have 1 float/register, there's nothing to swizzle there). or IOW, these are 16 ops (ok, most/all of them fused, but that's not the point), carried in.. 15 clocks!? does anybody else find the ratio of ~1 op/clock rather bothersome? i do. let me explain why: because that means that only one shader unit can work on one thread at a time.
maciek_urbanski said:I'm assuming you're referring to 'Vertex / Triangle Ratio average = 1 vtx/tri, peak 0.5 vtx/tri'. Yup, I guess so too. And it means that they have transformed vertex cache.blu said:so here the '1 tri/clock' is the typical PR speak used to imply 1 vertex/tri ratio, which is ok.
I think the reality is 60 clocks/vertex, but there are 4 shader units, so in theoretical scenario when only vertex processing is done (all 4 shader units are doing VS) they'll get average of 15 clocks...blu said:what is bothering is the quote of 15 clocks/vertex (transform only). now, 'transform only' clearly implies a sole MVP (model-view-projection) transform operation. now, if we assume MAD (multiply-add) ops would be used to do that (and the shader units are entirely devoted to vertex work), that is 4x 4-wide MADs per vertex transformed, swizzles non-widthstanding (then again, we have 1 float/register, there's nothing to swizzle there). or IOW, these are 16 ops (ok, most/all of them fused, but that's not the point), carried in.. 15 clocks!? does anybody else find the ratio of ~1 op/clock rather bothersome? i do. let me explain why: because that means that only one shader unit can work on one thread at a time.
the 4 units-60 clocks is another possible explanation, though i do have a question about it - what would take 60 clocks in a single vertex transform? that's 28 'unfused' fp ops (muls and adds). surely it does involve clipping and homogeneous division, but that's somewhere down the road, deeply pipelined (the tiling apparatus would be a good candidate for performing that). i can't see how a vertex shader would do clipping, given that's a 1-to-N operation. then again, these same units are used for geometry shaders (inherently 1-to-N), so they just as well may be used to do clipping, and likely w-division. *shrug*maciek_urbanski said:I think the reality is 60 clocks/vertex, but there are 4 shader units, so in theoretical scenario when only vertex processing is done (all 4 shader units are doing VS) they'll get average of 15 clocks...
This corresponds nicely to information that SGX can do 13.5 mpolys/s [@200Mhz]. This would mean that vertex processing takes (200*mega [1/s] )*( 4 [shader_units ] )/( 13.5*mega [polys/s] ) = 59.259 [clocks].
I'm assuming that their 'transform only' includes clipping and division when projecting 3D->2D. They cannot do it in pixel shaders, because they tiled architecture has to have 2D triangles after VS to match triangles to specific tiles...
i think everybody does it like this these days. FPUs included.As a side note: Interesting if they have a HW division unit... but I'm betting that they have small ROM table for first steps of Newton-Raphson approximation and then do 2-3 software NR iterations.
i think that not so much because there are not enough 3/4-wide MADs in modern shaders (there are plenty) to keep those SIMD units busy, but because when you do your wide MADs on individual scalars you don't have to worry about swizzles/packing. in shaders you sometimes need your vectors as SoA (structure-of-arrays), and sometimes as AoS (array-of-structures) - a true SIMD unit would have to swizzle excessively to handle that. the same problem just does not stand with 'scattered vectors' when your vector elements are kept separately.andys said:I remember reading elsewhere that apparently modern GPUs don't do SIMD FMAC anymore, because it's hard to actually keep them full, instead preferring to have more threads and have smaller units. I don't know how true this is. For 8bit colour (with an alpha channel) I imagine it's very easy to keep it full, but for floats its probably easier to have individual elements.
I agree, but all figures I've found on net quoting those 13.5 mpolys/s were in polys/s. So I'm guessing they've wrote some benchmark rendering flat-shaded triangles o the screen and measured results. So clipping might be involved.blu said:the 4 units-60 clocks is another possible explanation, though i do have a question about it - what would take 60 clocks in a single vertex transform? that's 27 'unfused' fp ops (muls and adds). surely it does involve clipping and homogeneous division, but that's somewhere down the road, deeply pipelined (the tiling apparatus would be a good candidate for performing that). i can't see how a vertex shader would do clipping, given that's a 1-to-N operation. then again, these same units are used for geometry shaders (inherently 1-to-N), so they just as well may be used to do clipping, and likely w-division. *shrug*
Sadly... not everybody. Some architectures (like G945 I'm babbling about constantly) has dedicated (shadred by all shader units) math unit.blu said:i think everybody does it like this these days. FPUs included.As a side note: Interesting if they have a HW division unit... but I'm betting that they have small ROM table for first steps of Newton-Raphson approximation and then do 2-3 software NR iterations.
I don't know. I do not own Atom mainboard... I'm just analyzing contents of installer.blu said:(...)for starter, what does glxinfo report after installation?
Sorry, guys, this was my mistake, I've missed some strings. I've updated list above and it should be more complete.blu said:Maciek, that set of extentions raises a few questions....)
Both 'Tungsten Graphics, Inc.' and abundance of calls prefixed with 'dri' are present.blu said:leaving aside the fact that not all of those may have entry points, and thus be actually implemented extensions, the above points incline me to think that this ICD may not be a proper DRI one, but rather some sw contraption. can you, please, check if the string "DRI" can be found in there? another string to look for is "Tungsten".
Phawx said:This is one of the few threads worth following. It has action, suspense, drama...it should be made into a hollywood blockbuster
gerd said:I've posted on the other board, that you need someone with an atom-device. I hope someone helps.