Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open-Source Graphics Processor

kickstarter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 78 posts

Re: Open-Source Graphics Processor

#31

Post by vidarh »

krisoft wrote: post #15

Based on what little I do know about GPUs, it seems to me that they are aiming for a hardware-fixed pipeline as a first step, and want to move towards general shader based architecture only as a very-very stretched goal. Am I right? If I see it right what is the reason for that? Couldn't they just jump to a modern architecture, instead of following the evolution of the industry? Excuse me for my ignorance, it's possi…

Because they are sitting on an already mostly-complete version covering most of the first two goals.

Re: Open-Source Graphics Processor

#32

Post by jere »

zokier wrote: post #30
jere wrote: post #7

Is there a reason why the demo video looks like the cutting edge in 1993? Maybe I'm missing something...

Because they are demoing it with a benchmark suite from 1999/2000 (you see WinBench 99 and WinBench 2000 in some segments). Presumably because the hardware can't handle more modern stuff. Heck, it seems to be struggling with demos they are showing.

Thank you. That's the answer I was looking for. I had figured they had written their own demo software to show off the capabilities, but a benchmark makes a lot more sense.

Though now that I know they're using benchmarks from last century (and struggling), I'm even more confused about why this is exciting.

Re: Open-Source Graphics Processor

#33

Post by sitkack »

justincormack wrote: post #27

I wish people wouldn't use the LGPL for "hardware" without a legal opinion from the FSF. I mean what is "linking" for verilog code? - it does not fit the model. The intentions are fine but the mechanisms need work.

Is there a comparable license that achieves one of the goals of LGPL, that changes to the library get published? I doubt many open hardware publishers really have relinking in mind.

Re: Open-Source Graphics Processor

#34

Post by sitkack »

agumonkey wrote: post #28
fosap wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>- seems to be based on 2000-era technology Could you elaborate?

I guess he meant that until the latest goal, it's a fixed rendering pipeline gpu. ps: instead of parallel compute units for vertex/pixel shader. ps2: I'd like to see an open hardware RISC movement for GPU. I wish for a 'simple' parallel array of visual oriented floating point primitives, very small and regular, but very open so that people can write compilers and drivers with ease. As opposed to very potent but obscu…

Which struck me as totally backwards. With embedded multipliers available in nearly all levels of FPGAs, I think an OpenCL/HSAIL target would be a more generic solution that could enable many of the hardcoded features in software.

Re: Open-Source Graphics Processor

#35

Post by cbhl »

willvarfar wrote: post #29

If they plan to release it as LGPL, do they mean to dual-license it too? Do they see a future revenue stream in its adoption?

It looks like they already have a commercial version, which they've already sold to various customers.

If I had to guess, it'd be that these guys really want to open source it, but don't have the revenue stream to do so. So the kickstarter is to see if the idealists will put their money where their mouth is (so that these guys can buy food and have a roof over their heads while working on opening up the hardware).

Re: Open-Source Graphics Processor

#36

Post by agumonkey »

sitkack wrote: post #34
agumonkey wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess he meant that until the latest goal, it's a fixed rendering pipeline gpu. ps: instead of parallel compute units for vertex/pixel shader. ps2: I'd like to see an open hardware RISC movement for GPU. I wish for a 'simple' parallel array of visual oriented floating point primitives, very small and regular, but very open so that people can write compilers and drivers with ease. As opposed to very potent but obscu…

Which struck me as totally backwards. With embedded multipliers available in nearly all levels of FPGAs, I think an OpenCL/HSAIL target would be a more generic solution that could enable many of the hardcoded features in software.

Ha, you summarized what I was trying to express while I was editing. Completely agree.

Re: Open-Source Graphics Processor

#38

Post by lambda »

fosap wrote: post #26
pjc50 wrote: post #24

As someone with a chip design background: - prices seem reasonable for doing this as a commercial project - badly written intro that assumes far too much - seems to be based on 2000-era technology - not actually delivering hardware, so very limited practical use - the community that demands open hardware on principle is a lot smaller than they think, so this probably won't get funded But we're not used to kickstartin…

>- seems to be based on 2000-era technology Could you elaborate?

The goal is to produce a re-implementation of the #9 Ticket to Ride IV card (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_Nine_Visual_Technology) which is a fixed-function graphics card released in 1998. As they say in the first paragraph, "The reason behind this was to provide a binary compatible graphics core for vertical markets: Medical Imaging, Military, Industrial, and Server products."

This is not something that will be remotely competitive with modern GPUs. Their $1,000,000 stretch goal would be to implement a modern shader engine, but given that they aren't offering any actual hardware, I'm not sure how they hope to get to that point.

Re: Open-Source Graphics Processor

#39

Post by zokier »

I think they are approaching the marketing from a wrong direction. Instead of targeting PC/opensource enthusiasts, they should be targeting the growing "maker" segment. Have a FPGA board as a backer reward, and demo it using a microcontroller. That way all the limitations spawning from a 15 year old GPU core do not matter that much when there aren't really many competitors.

Re: Open-Source Graphics Processor

#40

Post by justincormack »

sitkack wrote: post #33
justincormack wrote: post #27

I wish people wouldn't use the LGPL for "hardware" without a legal opinion from the FSF. I mean what is "linking" for verilog code? - it does not fit the model. The intentions are fine but the mechanisms need work.

Is there a comparable license that achieves one of the goals of LGPL, that changes to the library get published? I doubt many open hardware publishers really have relinking in mind.

Not a good one that I know of. See this article for discussion of some issues http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/02/8911/ mentions issues of what is "distribution".
Post reply on HN