> When I say developers, I mean graphics people like Unity...
Oh. You mean modern game 3D engine development houses. Okay. :) I would expect that these companies would be far more likely to employ very smart people than some random software house that also does OGL/D3D-driven graphics. However -as you allude to in your comment- skill in engine design and construction does not guarantee skill in graphics driver design and construction.
> When OpenGL was first designed, GPUs were fixed-function hardware...
Oh, I know. In my first message in this thread, I mention the fixed-function work that I did in a former life. I've read about OpenGL back when it was just SGI's GL. I've even made use of OpenGL's network transparency! :)
I think you've lost sight of why I started this thread.
runeks wrote:
> Vulkan's purpose is for GPU hardware companies to stop having to write graphics software (drivers)... Hopefully [Vulkan's API will be] so close [to the metal] that the driver will be very thin.
bobajeff replied:
> Having to rely on companies to update their drivers or open the source code has been a major pain point for a long time.
bobajeff seems to be thinking that Vulkan development will be handled primarily by third parties.
runeks's comment reminded of Itanium, a CPU whose programming API -as one could call it- was very, very thin; requiring compiler authors to do a huge amount of work -such as instruction scheduling- traditionally done by logic in the hardware.
A big reason Itanium failed in the wider market was because it asked far too much of what -i guess- could be called CPU driver writers. It hid far too little of what was required to get good performance out of modern CPUs, instead demanding that that work be offloaded on to compiler authors.
Do you see why I might be concerned about the same sort of problems with Vulkan? Can you provide some technical -rather than social- details about Vulkan plans to assuage this concern?
Ah, I see what you mean. I was thinking more in terms of market-driven motives for adoption rather than technical facts. Unfortunately, Vulkan is currently still under development and under strict NDA so I can't disclose any of the inner workings at this moment in time (beyond what we have posted on the blog). However, when the spec is final and public, we will talk a lot about the technical implications in more detail, offering code snippets and tutorials so developers can understand how to use Vulkan.
When it comes to Vulkan development, it is a pretty much a joint effort. We (the GPU providers) design the graphics processors and write the drivers/compilers to support Khronos. Then the application developers (the middleware guys) adopt their engines and libraries for Vulkan too in cooperation with us and other members of Khronos. Finally, the high-level application developers (e.g. games developers) port their software too. In addition, third parties might also create Vulkan open source drivers and compilers for the GPUs so it's a combination of in-house and third-party work.
Oh. You mean modern game 3D engine development houses. Okay. :) I would expect that these companies would be far more likely to employ very smart people than some random software house that also does OGL/D3D-driven graphics. However -as you allude to in your comment- skill in engine design and construction does not guarantee skill in graphics driver design and construction.
> When OpenGL was first designed, GPUs were fixed-function hardware...
Oh, I know. In my first message in this thread, I mention the fixed-function work that I did in a former life. I've read about OpenGL back when it was just SGI's GL. I've even made use of OpenGL's network transparency! :)
I think you've lost sight of why I started this thread.
runeks wrote:
> Vulkan's purpose is for GPU hardware companies to stop having to write graphics software (drivers)... Hopefully [Vulkan's API will be] so close [to the metal] that the driver will be very thin.
bobajeff replied:
> Having to rely on companies to update their drivers or open the source code has been a major pain point for a long time.
bobajeff seems to be thinking that Vulkan development will be handled primarily by third parties.
runeks's comment reminded of Itanium, a CPU whose programming API -as one could call it- was very, very thin; requiring compiler authors to do a huge amount of work -such as instruction scheduling- traditionally done by logic in the hardware.
A big reason Itanium failed in the wider market was because it asked far too much of what -i guess- could be called CPU driver writers. It hid far too little of what was required to get good performance out of modern CPUs, instead demanding that that work be offloaded on to compiler authors.
Do you see why I might be concerned about the same sort of problems with Vulkan? Can you provide some technical -rather than social- details about Vulkan plans to assuage this concern?