Linux Support for Riva TNT2 110
Brian the Wise
writes "Just got email confirmation from NVidia that
the new Riva TNT2 will have full X and 3D support under
Linux. They should be announcing it on their web site in
about 2 weeks time. All we need now are our Quake3 for
Linux CDs."
anyone know when? (Score:1)
/AE
Don't rely solely on tomshardware (Score:1)
Linux 3D architecture (Score:1)
This is bad (Score:1)
You are making a huge mistake by supporting crap like this.
s/one/won (Score:1)
This is a (not) Good Thing (Score:1)
If someone released specs they would gain more in users than they would lose by giving out the specs.
G200-dev url... again (Score:1)
http://lists.openprojects.n et/mailman/listinfo/g200-dev/A? [openprojects.net]
Doubt it (Score:1)
Matrox has nearly one already (Score:1)
/Andreas
I didn't feel that they were insulting me... (Score:1)
I recieved a response that the rumors were correct, but that I wouldn't find anything on their website until it was ready.
/Andreas
Sometimes you have to reinvent the wheel (Score:1)
Until the time of that release I guess that GLX is probably a good solution that isn't going to be extremely hard to port to PI's direct rendering architecture.
/AE
Intergraph Intense 3D 100 support for Linux (Score:1)
Yes I would like to see more than just VooDoo 2 support for Linux in the area of 3D cards. As an owner of an Intergraph Intense 3D 100 card, I wish it had Linux/X-Free86 Drivers.
I might have to downgrade to a 2M PCI based CIrrus Logic or S3 based video card, how revolting!
This is a Good Thing (Score:1)
I bought a G200 because Matrox promised to release their specs. (I unfortunately gave in and bought a Riva TNT three days before the spec release, thinking that Matrox had made a hollow promise.) I now regret that... Turns out the Windows OpenGL problems I was having that caused me to finally ditch the G200 were non-card-specific.
I bought a Voodoo because it was supported under Linux.
And it's been proven that giving out specs won't hurt a company.
Note that the Voodoo/Voodoo2 were nearly identical in software, yet the V2 had 3-4 times the performance. All that was required to allow the V2 to function under Linux with the V1 drivers was the alteration of 2 bytes in the chipset-detection codes.
Later, someone discovered that an ancient GLX module for the Matrox Millenium worked quite well on a G200. Talk about a generation gap!
Now, it's pretty much public that the TNT2 is a huge increase in performance with NO CHANGES TO THE INTERFACE WHATSOEVER!
Any reason we should believe this? (Score:1)
I didn't feel that they were insulting me... (Score:1)
If your ready to Buy. (Score:1)
My advice is to purchase the video card that has the best support for linux... Too me that looks like the 3dfx chip cards.
I will probly purchase a new Video card some time after Quake3 comes out. I do not think I will be purchasing a TNT2. At least not until they support the TNT and TNT2 under Linux.
time will tell.
This is a Good Thing (Score:1)
The 3D market is really competitive right now, and NVIDIA is in first place. Every graphics chipset mfg in the world has them in their sights. It would be hard for anyone to make a _rational_ case that releasing source code that will expose their IP is in their best interest at this time. 2D is another matter; everyone has a fast 2D card now days, and there is no harm in releasing 2D specs, contrary to what some chipset mfg's seem to believe.
I know that this doesn't fit into the Free Software concept very well, but there are cases in the Real World where Free Software just doesn't make sense. It's easy to be a idealist, but much more difficult to come up with a compromise that will work for everyone involved.
This is a good move by NVIDIA (if it's true), and I'm looking forward to my new TNT. :-)
TedC
what I'm really saying is... (Score:1)
No, what I'm saying is that by opening their specs, NVIDIA would expose IP to their competitors, and lose customers indirectly by allowing their competitors to produce better products. This would be a good thing for customers in the short term, but not so good for NVIDIA, and I really can't expect them to act in a way that's not in their own best interest. We're all human, after all.
TedC
Voodoo 3 vs. TNT2 (Score:1)
The Voodoo 3 has 16-bit external rendering, a 16-bit z-buffer, and 16 MB RAM, while the TNT2 has 32-external rendering, a 24-bit z-buffer, and 32 MB RAM. The TNT is obviously better based on specs, although you shouldn't have much trouble finding an old Amiga evangelist who is willing to try and talk you into the notion that 16-bit is better. :-)
Check out tomshardware.com for reviews.
TedC
This is a Good Thing (Score:1)
Nothing has been released yet (or even officially announced), so who can say?
TedC
I hope so... (Score:1)
I just wrote them an email a couple weeks ago asking them if they have any intention of releasing the specs or at least a Linux driver for the TNT. Never heard a peep back from them though.
In what form? (Score:1)
Binary-only is fine for those of us who use RedHat on i386 which seems to be a sort of reference platform in some ways, but I'd like to be able to make use of that hardware on other PCI machines (are there non-Intel AGP machines?) or on BSD boxes.
Matthew.
Wee!! (Score:1)
Ya know, I hear this sentiment a lot. I always wonder, why don't people just scrape up $120 and buy a Nintendo, or another gaming console of their choice? You can buy adaptors to display to your monitor, so not having a TV is not a problem. For me, it is certainly cheaper to buy an N64 than to get another hard drive (since mine is small) and a new graphics card, and then pay for Microsoft's flagshit product. I guess if you were planning to rip off games rather than buying them this might be cheaper in the long run, but who wants to do that? The newer and more exciting game companies are on shaky enough financial footing as it is, without having people use their products without pay.
Besides, given the choice between closed-source software and hardware, I'll always choose the latter. It's better-tested and more robust, and just as configurable. ;)
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
TNT2? what about the TNT!? (Score:1)
Sometimes you have to reinvent the wheel (Score:1)
I'm sure IP comes into play here. I'm not sure how far along GLX is and whether IP would have to be released to the development community to support TNT2 with GLX. Basically when GLX was proprietary to SGI NDA agreements could be reached with the company itself. Though shall not release proprietary information or we'll hit you with a really big stick! This doesn't work as well in a distributed work environment.
What Nvidia were saying last year... (Score:1)
That is, a binary-only library that sits between the hardware and Mesa/X
Doubt it (Score:1)
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
What does 3D support mean? (Score:1)
more options (Score:1)
So does anyone have any speculations on what the Matrox G400 will have in store for us? It's been on their website for quite a while now, but I haven't heard talk about it anywhere else...
You want speed. (Score:1)
No. You're thinking of the Metabyte PGC process. AFAIK, nobody has yet announced support for PGC. Metabyte has said that their system will work on any current graphics system, not just TNT.
Not that I'd turn my nose up at a PGC TNT2. Just that I don't expect it to be coming out on the initial crop of TNT2 and TNT2 Ultra cards.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Don't hold your breath (Score:1)
from nVidia stating they were going to release
TNT hardware specs from October or November 1998
and that still hasn't materialized... so I'll
believe it when I see functioning software...
My advice: wait and see (Score:1)
The moral of the story is to adopt a wait and see attitude. If they make good on their promises, then by all means go out and support those companies and show them our buying power. But, wait and have them "put up" before going out and spending dollars and feeling swindled...
In what form? (Score:1)
Mesa and Riva (Score:1)
Race for linux support, 3dfx or nVidia (Score:1)
I guess this and Q3 mean I need to get my butt in gear and get the Banshee/V3 stuff out! :-) Actually my time between jobs has helped progress it greatly.
- |Daryll
In what form? (Score:1)
Um, no (Score:1)
Matrox has the best Linux support, because they're the only ones to have released their specs. Hopefully they'll do the same with the G400, or it'll be similar enough not to matter.
I though there was no TNT acceleration support. (Score:1)
And indeed I find moving windows in X is slower than with win9x / D3D. But that's just the overhead of X ?
confirmation? (Score:1)
A little clarity (Score:1)
From what I've read in those emails, nVidia are committed to decent Linux support, and in 2 weeks we'll be getting the full story.
Furthermore, stop quibbling over binary-only versus open source. Everybody _knows_ open source is better, but alienating a company that provides binary-only (like 3dfx currently do) is not going to persuade them to make their drivers open source - in fact, they may simply choose to just remove the binary-only support for the minority platforms and then everyone is screwed. Binary-only support is better than no support at all.
Of course, no support at all means nobody in our minority group will be purchasing their hardware which will make a minor dint in their pockets. But many companies can take that especially if it means less hassles.
Guess I'll Wait ;) (Score:1)
not that SiS is a bad chipset but the driver's buggy. never left beta when SuSe handed it over to Xfree86. and the most frustrating part is that under windows it is fine and even accelerated, even though most games can't look horrible. I should have waited instead of buying the first AGP card that was available in my price range. but not anymore. Q3 and HalfLife should look pretty good on my screen now.
if only I could afford getting a new monitor too. this interlaced shit is pissing me off.
p.s. i hope nVidia considers implementing the DVD-decoding driver for linux as well, since all TNT2 based cards seem to have the capability. that would be sweet. and ELSA i think is even going to have a video-in in their Erazor III (also tnt2 based).
Wouldn't it be great if you could get a TV-in/TV-out/SVGA-out/2D/3D/accelerator/DVD/decod
anyone know when? (Score:1)
confirmation? (Score:1)
This is great (Score:1)
Wee!! (Score:1)
Still I can see your point. I'm waiting for the PSX2, this thing looks incredible.
Tim
What about 3D for my TNT??? (Score:1)
You have it backwards. (Score:1)
We already know that free software junkies will flock to the companies which are most open, and avoid ones which aren't. It's not up to me to disprove that they will lose users to the competition -- no one has proven it will happen in the first place!
TNT2 vs G400 (Score:1)
has any1 else done a comparison on this and the TNT2?
Matrox has nearly one already (Score:1)
We _can_ live without TNT and voodoo. In fact, lots of people are waiting on the sidelines to see if the 3D companies get their acts together before buying 3D cards. For every Linuxer who bought a TNT or voodoo there are probably a couple who have held off because information about how to program the 3d hardware hasn't been released.
In a couple of years, the functionality of 3D cards will probably get put in the CPU and nobody will care about 3D cards.
RE:If you use AMD, V3 is better (Score:1)
If either had a good 3dnow implementation a k6-2/k6-3 would be the equal to any intel chip gaming wise (well their would some AGP differences because the AGP difference from intel standard, but those aren't that large).
The voodoo 3 won't work for 3d under linux yet. (Score:1)
http://glide.xxedgexx.com/status.html
for more information on how the port of Glide is coming. Right now there is a decent X server available there for the banshee which also works with the Voodoo 3. Support for 3d under the newer 3dfx chipsets should be ready within a few months.
Which card you go with to me would depend on which one has the best support. I don't know what Nvidia has planned and I don't trust them not to try something intended to lock people into using their products. Maybe they will do it right though, I'm not saying that they won't, just that I'm uncertain of their intentions.
They pulled it? (Score:1)
I think the TNT2 are backwards compatible... (Score:1)
RB
Wee!! (Score:1)
and for the CIH virus. i don't like my flash BIOS.
aaron
I think the TNT2 are backwards compatible... (Score:1)
aaron
Wee!! (Score:1)
Most serious gamers don't want to sit on the floor of the tv room playing Mario 64 by themselves, the only type of gaming that is actually fun is multiplayer over the Internet.
(ok this is off topic but TNT2 = gaming)
A little clarity (Score:1)
I've got a lot of emails come in with various questions, and all I can say at the moment is this: Watch the NVidia web site in about 2 weeks time (that is when they told me they would make some formal announcements).
Also, the TNT does not have 3D support. I don't have any details on the 3D implementation for the TNT2, but my guess would be Mesa.
I've emailed my contact to ask him if I can publish the message he sent me and maybe his email address, so if I get it I will add it to these comments...
Until then, let's see what appears on their web site...
Brian
Wee!! (Score:1)
With better 3d support and more games I could delete my windows partition for EVER!
You want speed. (Score:1)
Linux 3D architecture (Score:2)
However Matrox has done the right thing and released specs, we have made significant progress on the glx driver for the G200. See the following url:
http://lists.openprojects.n et/mailman/listinfo/g200-dev [openprojects.net]
no overlay plane? what about trim curves? (Score:2)
is there a way to get 3d with an overlay planes
in linux?
mesa does not support trimmed nurbs, this can be
a problem with using mesa as the "standard" openGL
for XFree86. trim curve support is important for
3d apps (maya etc)
This is a Good Thing (Score:2)
An assertion often made, but never proven.
Five years from now all 3D chips will have about the same features and level of performance (as most 2D chips do now), IP will no longer be that important, and we can all use Open Source drivers. Until then I don't mind meeting NVIDIA half way.
TedC
Red Hat and binary-only drivers (Score:2)
Red Hat signed an NDA and released a binary-only driver for the Intel i740. This driver was recently released as Open Source, so good things can come from less than perfect beginnings. :-)
TedC
anyone know when? (Score:2)
I love my 2400x1600@32bpp virtual displays on my current TNT; the TNT2 promises to be even better!
Hm. (Score:2)
The TNT people (BTW TNT2 is the exact same hardware as TNT, just overclocked, nVidia guarantees me that if it works on TNT it'll work on TNT2
But hey, I've got a TNT and SLI'd V2's. I win either way
Linux 3D architecture (Score:2)
They also include an application CD for other commercial products
There's no reason they couldn't put nVidia's and 3Dfx's stuff on the application disk. I wish I had thought of that earlier!
- |Daryll
Linux 3D architecture (Score:2)
Currently if you want 3D and the source to go with it our only option is the G200.
Race for linux support, 3dfx or nVidia (Score:2)
ArsonSmith
Matrox has nearly one already (Score:3)
http://lists.openprojects.n et/mailman/listinfo/g200-dev [openprojects.net]
Binary-only drivers are not a solution, please do not support hardware that doesn't have free drivers. (Speech, not beer)
I think the TNT2 are backwards compatible... (Score:3)
Bit by bit, we're getting closer to the true desktop metaphor (I want my desktop to be 8K x 4K @ 200dpi and 90Hz :-)
I have to agree with Crow (Score:4)
1. An driver written by regular Linux hackers who have full access to specs. (what Crow's doing)
2. An open driver written by the company.
3. A closed driver written by the company.
4. A closed driver written by someone for free for the company. (3dfx)
Nvidia might be 2 or 3. Let's hope 2. Like they did with their X server code, maybe they'll come around and give out the source. But I doubt it, since they probably consider their 3d parts to have much more information that needs to be kept proprietary.
Why do I think 1 is better than 2? I've been lurking on the mailing list for the G200 glx driver development, and I've learned so much from it! I had no idea about most of this stuff before. I could never have learned this, even if Matrox developed their own in-house open-source driver. So, it will be a very good thing if Nvidia releases the source to the drivers. I don't particularly like the preceden 3dfx has set. I like the one Matrox has set. Unfortunately, I have a bad feeling about which one Nvidia will follow.
Linux 3D architecture (Score:5)
I don't know the details of the TNT2 release. My best guess is that they have SGI OpenGL as a base. That means they'll be releasing binary only.
That's not particularly bad. There is room to have more than one OpenGL implementation. In fact, there are already three (Mesa, XiG, MetroLink).
The biggest problem is that OpenGL provides and API and not an ABI. That means programs can be recompiled against different OpenGL libraries and work, but compiling against one library doesn't insure compatability with another. No one wants that to be a problem, because we don't want different versions of applications to be required. I've been talking with vendors and suggesting that Mesa be made a reference platform. The advantage of that is that everyone gets it for free and we all agree on interface difference. Mostly this hasn't been a major issue in my testing so far, but it has come up. It also helps that we have some common benchmarking programs that we can all use to test.
That takes care of the commercial side of the discussion, now lets look at the free software side of the problem.
Mesa is the OpenGL layer. It currently has a hardware layer known as DD for lack of a better term. The current 3dfx support for Mesa goes through that interface. SUSE has worked on extending that to something they call ACL. See http://www.suse.de/~sim [www.suse.de] for more information. People are also adding multithread support and optimizations to the core of Mesa
GLX provides and interface layer between an X server and OpenGL. It also allows remote OpenGL applications to communicate with a local server. SGI made GLX open source.
Precision Insight took GLX and Mesa and rolled that into the XFree 4.0 tree. So, minimally all XFree 4.0 servers will have the capability of doing software OpenGL. This will become a new "assumption" about a Linux workstation which is great.
There is parallel work going on between SUSE and PI at the moment. Simon from SUSE, is working on a hardware interface layer (generic PCI) and an integration layer (MLX).
Finally Precision Insight is working on the DRI, direct rendering infrastructure. This allows applications outside the X server to talk straight to the hardware. Here's Q&A [opengl.org] you can read.
My work on Glide for Rush (and now Banshee/V3) needs something like the DRI. My first solution was a bit of hack (called the Rush extension) and was an X server extension. Switching to the DRI should standardize things further.
I hope this clears things up. I'm extremely pleased to see all the progress. Having nVidia release an OpenGL is fine as long as it interacts well with applications compiled against Mesa. I'm fairly sure it will since they want Q3 to work!
- |Daryll