intel have not implemented FBO's and a bunch of pixel formats properly.
Why some graphics card can't use OpenGL, even though the manufacturer says so?
Beware: A wall of words...it's made out of flesh and bones...
Ok, I have Intel graphics. I know that you berate the graphics card very poor, so we skip that part. It's no big deal anyway.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The main question (point of interest, point of target, the pointer, etc.) is:
Why do Intel graphics card doesn't work well with OpenGL-based applications, even though the manufacturer says so?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The manufacturer says Intel graphics card can support from OpenGL 1.0 to 1.3 to 2.0 and, for the very latest ones, 2.1.
My card, Intel GMA X3100, on a laptop, according to the manufacturer, says I have 2.0. However, when running OpenGL applications which requires 2.0, it crashes and fails to load/initialize/execute/debug/compile/start/build/run. (I've tested many applications, and they each give out numerous answers.)
Does that mean, Intel didn't implement something (or missing some files or parts of it), which was a standard for Nvidia and ATi, and causes us to say that Intel GMAs sucks like hell?
I'm just dying to know why...there's no answers from Google, Yahoo!, Ask!, About.com, etc. popular search and information sites.
In fact, I just thought of something:
Why can't we just go tell Intel directly (like using Customer Services, Feedback, etc., not in the face and spat everything out) that they need to improve OpenGL capabilities so that they can join the Graphics War (between Nvidia and ATi, acting as the The Third World) and compete competitively?
Ok, I have Intel graphics. I know that you berate the graphics card very poor, so we skip that part. It's no big deal anyway.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The main question (point of interest, point of target, the pointer, etc.) is:
Why do Intel graphics card doesn't work well with OpenGL-based applications, even though the manufacturer says so?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The manufacturer says Intel graphics card can support from OpenGL 1.0 to 1.3 to 2.0 and, for the very latest ones, 2.1.
My card, Intel GMA X3100, on a laptop, according to the manufacturer, says I have 2.0. However, when running OpenGL applications which requires 2.0, it crashes and fails to load/initialize/execute/debug/compile/start/build/run. (I've tested many applications, and they each give out numerous answers.)
Does that mean, Intel didn't implement something (or missing some files or parts of it), which was a standard for Nvidia and ATi, and causes us to say that Intel GMAs sucks like hell?
I'm just dying to know why...there's no answers from Google, Yahoo!, Ask!, About.com, etc. popular search and information sites.
In fact, I just thought of something:
Why can't we just go tell Intel directly (like using Customer Services, Feedback, etc., not in the face and spat everything out) that they need to improve OpenGL capabilities so that they can join the Graphics War (between Nvidia and ATi, acting as the The Third World) and compete competitively?
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
You mean frame buffer object(s), right? We could just let them know that they haven't done it 100% right.
And pixel formats? I didn't get it...
And pixel formats? I didn't get it...
ATi themselves don't do a lot of things properly in OpenGL...
Intel is exceptionally bad at that. What Intel GMA is is simply just something that displays graphics and stuffs on your screen. The rest of the other features are only to reel you in. Let's say... the hardware might be capable to some extent (since it's Intel we are talking about here), but the software absolutely ****s because by their standard, anything that shows pixels on the screen works, and as long as it has enough compatibility for you to play... say... whatever game Microsoft bundles along with Windows, then it's a pass. Their GPUs are more about accelerating videos than 3D. And don't bother wasting your breath with their customer service. They just simply do not care about whether you can run a single OpenGL application or not. People have petitioned Intel ever since the days of the GMA 900 (first ever GMA GPU out) until now and all we get is... just what Intel gives us, what you have right now. The petitions have been so bad that they outsourced GMA 500 driver development just so they can put the blame on the outsourced company instead.
So sincerely, if you consider compatibility above all else, go for an nVidia GPU next time, and that's without exception. Performance-wise, ATi might be holding the torch if that's important to you but be warned that their compatibility might just be less than an inch better than Intel. Intel... let's leave them to those who just want a functional machine. And that's my answer to you: either sell your old laptop and get a new one, or get a desktop, or... forget about using the software you're trying to use.
If you want more details, then like Squall said, they're not doing a lot of the pixel formats right... and I would add that they are not implementing a large number of OpenGL extensions. Think... with CPU, you have SSE and SSE2, and SSSE3 and other things, right? Then Intel GPUs would be like a CPU without all of those. And the only way you can remedy it is by replacing.
Intel is exceptionally bad at that. What Intel GMA is is simply just something that displays graphics and stuffs on your screen. The rest of the other features are only to reel you in. Let's say... the hardware might be capable to some extent (since it's Intel we are talking about here), but the software absolutely ****s because by their standard, anything that shows pixels on the screen works, and as long as it has enough compatibility for you to play... say... whatever game Microsoft bundles along with Windows, then it's a pass. Their GPUs are more about accelerating videos than 3D. And don't bother wasting your breath with their customer service. They just simply do not care about whether you can run a single OpenGL application or not. People have petitioned Intel ever since the days of the GMA 900 (first ever GMA GPU out) until now and all we get is... just what Intel gives us, what you have right now. The petitions have been so bad that they outsourced GMA 500 driver development just so they can put the blame on the outsourced company instead.
So sincerely, if you consider compatibility above all else, go for an nVidia GPU next time, and that's without exception. Performance-wise, ATi might be holding the torch if that's important to you but be warned that their compatibility might just be less than an inch better than Intel. Intel... let's leave them to those who just want a functional machine. And that's my answer to you: either sell your old laptop and get a new one, or get a desktop, or... forget about using the software you're trying to use.
If you want more details, then like Squall said, they're not doing a lot of the pixel formats right... and I would add that they are not implementing a large number of OpenGL extensions. Think... with CPU, you have SSE and SSE2, and SSSE3 and other things, right? Then Intel GPUs would be like a CPU without all of those. And the only way you can remedy it is by replacing.
I didn't know there were petitions since GMA 900 was out. Gonna have to search for some. If you have links, please provide some.
And thanks for the detailed description.
And thanks for the detailed description.
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Next Generation Emulation
A forum community dedicated to all emulation enthusiasts. Come Join discussion on all platforms from Nintendo, Microsoft Xbox, Sony Playstation, to PC. Coding, tips, builds, specs, tricks and more.
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Top Contributors this Month
View All
spotanjo3
21 Replies
nomadspy2020
10 Replies
michaelfrank
9 Replies
Recommended Communities
