5 ms·

I'm happy to see vendors paying attention to having working graphics hardware. It's really sad how "you can actually use the 3D functionality in the chip" is a

I'm happy to see vendors paying attention to having working graphics hardware. It's really sad how "you can actually use the 3D functionality in the chip" is a selling point that differentiates these small ARM boards. OpenGL ES 2.0 will be 10 years old next year. There's no excuse to not have a working implementation of it accessible. Imagine if you had to shop around to find a PC where the GPU actually worked without crashing (ODROID XU4 fails, Google "black screen bug"). Or if being able to play high-definition video was something you couldn't rely on, despite the hardware being there (again, ODROID XU4 fails). Or if the 64-bit mode fully implemented in silicon was inaccessible in practice without losing other hardware functionality (Raspberry Pi 3). This is sadly the situation we're in with these ARM boards, and I don't see it improving unless we demand working drivers.

vvanders 10y ago
How is it not a selling point? GPUs aren't cheap, someone has to develop the IP, drivers and support tools. I totally get a 2D accelerator being standard but 3D is complex enough and has such a steep curve for building content/using it correctly that I don't see why you'd include it by default. [edit] There's also a only a few ways to do 3D reasonably on embedded at low power and you're probably going to run afoul of all the patents in the space if you try to build your own IP.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- akiselev 10y ago
  I believe pcwalton is saying that it is sad that "you can actually use the GPU" is a selling point in the market for embedded devices that have a GPU, not that having a GPU shouldn't be a selling point. Many other boards come with processors with integrated GPUs but they're unusable because a driver is unavailable or some IP is under lockdown by an upstream vendor.
  - vvanders 10y ago
    Yes, but that's what I was getting at. From a tape-out perspective it costs more to have a second run w/ no-GPU vs a power gated GPU all in one die(which is also why PoP memory exists). The IP is locked out because there's an extra cost to the business to use it. Also embedded/mobile GPUs haven't been around nearly as long as OpenGL ES. Heck the Adreno 2xx which was one of the first real-ish GPUs was released in 2009 and even then you'd be lucky to get any sort of reasonable fill rate out of it. These type of GPUs really haven't come into their own until the last 3-4 years.
    - pcwalton 10y ago
      That's not the case on any of the models I've been complaining about (ODROID XU4, Raspberry Pi), nor the PocketCHIP (according to this). They have various solutions available to access the GPU. It's just that the drivers don't/didn't work. > Heck the Adreno 2xx which was one of the first real-ish GPUs was released in 2009 and even then you'd be lucky to get any sort of reasonable fill rate out of it. Adreno 200 is one of the worst offenders! There was no excuse for not being able to call glTexSubImage2D() without crashing the driver (for example). Qualcomm had the money to create a working driver; they just didn't.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - randomacct44 10y ago
        Yeah. Sure, tape-out may be cheaper with one chip line, but we aren't talking about chips where the feature is there in silicon but intentionally disabled (say, for the other more expensive variant). We're talking about a feature that the chips and systems are advertised as having, which doesn't work as it is intended to because the driver stack is broken. Where the vendor specifically says '....supports OpenGL ES x.x', but then you find it sort of does but not really and it's broken and won't ever be fixed. It's even more frustrating because there's a whole open-source community that would be willing to do the work of writing the drivers even, but then of course the vendors won't give them the data they need because of IP concerns. It just really sucks.
- pcwalton 10y ago
  It's not so bad to not have a GPU at all (though given that ARM owns Mali and you're licensing from ARM anyway, it seems prudent to have one if you can). The real problem is not being able to use the hardware that is there due to driver issues.

vvanders 10y ago

How is it not a selling point? GPUs aren't cheap, someone has to develop the IP, drivers and support tools. I totally get a 2D accelerator being standard but 3D is complex enough and has such a steep curve for building content/using it correctly that I don't see why you'd include it by default. [edit] There's also a only a few ways to do 3D reasonably on embedded at low power and you're probably going to run afoul of all the patents in the space if you try to build your own IP.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
akiselev 10y ago
I believe pcwalton is saying that it is sad that "you can actually use the GPU" is a selling point in the market for embedded devices that have a GPU, not that having a GPU shouldn't be a selling point. Many other boards come with processors with integrated GPUs but they're unusable because a driver is unavailable or some IP is under lockdown by an upstream vendor.
- vvanders 10y ago
  Yes, but that's what I was getting at. From a tape-out perspective it costs more to have a second run w/ no-GPU vs a power gated GPU all in one die(which is also why PoP memory exists). The IP is locked out because there's an extra cost to the business to use it. Also embedded/mobile GPUs haven't been around nearly as long as OpenGL ES. Heck the Adreno 2xx which was one of the first real-ish GPUs was released in 2009 and even then you'd be lucky to get any sort of reasonable fill rate out of it. These type of GPUs really haven't come into their own until the last 3-4 years.
  - pcwalton 10y ago
    That's not the case on any of the models I've been complaining about (ODROID XU4, Raspberry Pi), nor the PocketCHIP (according to this). They have various solutions available to access the GPU. It's just that the drivers don't/didn't work. > Heck the Adreno 2xx which was one of the first real-ish GPUs was released in 2009 and even then you'd be lucky to get any sort of reasonable fill rate out of it. Adreno 200 is one of the worst offenders! There was no excuse for not being able to call glTexSubImage2D() without crashing the driver (for example). Qualcomm had the money to create a working driver; they just didn't.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - randomacct44 10y ago
      Yeah. Sure, tape-out may be cheaper with one chip line, but we aren't talking about chips where the feature is there in silicon but intentionally disabled (say, for the other more expensive variant). We're talking about a feature that the chips and systems are advertised as having, which doesn't work as it is intended to because the driver stack is broken. Where the vendor specifically says '....supports OpenGL ES x.x', but then you find it sort of does but not really and it's broken and won't ever be fixed. It's even more frustrating because there's a whole open-source community that would be willing to do the work of writing the drivers even, but then of course the vendors won't give them the data they need because of IP concerns. It just really sucks.
pcwalton 10y ago
It's not so bad to not have a GPU at all (though given that ARM owns Mali and you're licensing from ARM anyway, it seems prudent to have one if you can). The real problem is not being able to use the hardware that is there due to driver issues.