DirectX 10 wrapper over OpenGL feasibility?

Maybe they will even opensource their drivers :
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/07/05/13/1659245.shtml

great, we can fix their bugs for them.

Originally posted by yooyo:
AFAIK, ATI has new OpenGL driver for Vista (built from scratch), and they have plan to put this driver for XP too but later. When? I dont know… Maybe this year. Right now, ATI have two OpenGL drivers, for XP and for Vista. Both drivers have bugs (or features?) but know workarounds on XP will not work on Vista.
I saw acouple of sources say they have recoded their GL driver for Vista from the ground up so I think it’s normal to find different bugs and performances.

catalyst the unsinkable.

**** its iceberg season as well :frowning:

reminds me of a joke i recently heard at work, concerning billgates and his kid

bg - son since your tenth birthday is coming up ill buy you anything you wish, just name it
son - well dad ive always wanted since i was little a micky mouse outfit
so bill brought him ATI!


personally i think ati are going the intel graphics method, high volume low cost parts == good profit. graphics cards are getting a bit stupid anyways, look at the latest benchmarks, theyre forced to benchmark at least 1600x1200 with high AA/AF to not become CPU limited.
what with them using 200+ watts + the size of a small sedan, its time to take the foot off the accelerator pedal (not that they will)

let me get this straight, you’re saying graphics cards are now too fast?
I’m certainly not cpu limited - the last app I did was definitely vertex shader limited. We were lucky enough to test it on the latest nv quadro, and the leap in performance in that vs limited app was staggering - so up went the vertex count (to get close to vertex-per-pixel).

Originally posted by zed:
look at the latest benchmarks, theyre forced to benchmark at least 1600x1200 with high AA/AF to not become CPU limited.
Somehow that doesn’t make any sense.
With low resolution (640x 480), you will get CPU limited and GPU will be idle.

1600x1200 with high AA/AF makes it GPU limited.

yes thats also what im saying
take for instance anandtech
theyre benchmarking at 1280x1024 1600x1200 1920x1200 + 2560x1600!
the smallest resolution is larger than 720p!
they have to choose such a large res or else you wont see a difference between the cards

btw check out battlefield2 2560x1600 + 4xAA gf8800ultra = 109fps (over 100fps or even 60fps is enuf for most ppl)

Marcus, you had snowy triangles, I had a permanent christmas tree in the upper left corner of the screen. Between us, we had a pretty sad nativity scene.

Originally posted by zed:
[b] yes thats also what im saying
take for instance anandtech
theyre benchmarking at 1280x1024 1600x1200 1920x1200 + 2560x1600!
the smallest resolution is larger than 720p!
they have to choose such a large res or else you wont see a difference between the cards

btw check out battlefield2 2560x1600 + 4xAA gf8800ultra = 109fps (over 100fps or even 60fps is enuf for most ppl) [/b]
Ah, so it just keeps the GPU busy but the CPU stays the same. Nice stuff.