PDA

View Full Version : Intel GMA HD and OpenGL



maru00
01-31-2011, 12:54 PM
Hello,





I would like to know what's going on. Everywhere on the Internet (Intel's website, Wikipedia, etc) it says that Intel HD supports OpenGL. When I run any OpenGL-based application (tried 3D Studio Max 2011 Student Edition, game Amnesia, OpenGL tests) they crash or the graphics don't work properly.



Here is my observations:



I am using this driver downloaded from Intel website:



Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator Driver for Windows 7* 64 and Windows Vista* 64 (exe)

Installs graphics driver version 15.21.5.64.2266 (8.15.10.2266) for Intel® integrated graphics.







on:



Lenovo ThinkPad - Core i3, 4GB DDR3 RAM, Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit



I downloaded OpenGL Extensions Viewer ( http://www.realtech-vr.com/glview/ ) and here is my problem: When I run "Rendering tests" Extension Viewer asks me to chose a driver:

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/2415/wybor.jpg





If I chose "no acceleration" or "forward context" option, the tests are passed, but the only thing I see in renderer window is this:

http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/2531/noaccel.jpg





If I chose the "regular" "Intel HD graphics" driver from the list, the tests RUN JUST FINE and are passed. This means that OpenGL CAN BE RAN on my system, right?

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/5052/test1zg.jpg





When I run 3DS Max with OpenGL driver selected, here's what happens:

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/7215/maxgk.jpg



BUT once every 100 runs it runs normally and viewports work fine, I can add objects and lights in OpenGL mode, so again IT IS POSSIBLE to run OpenGL in 3ds max.



My questions:

1. Why were the advanced OpenGL options removed from the new Intel HD driver?

2. Why OpenGL works only occasionally?

3. Is there a way to manually set the normal "Intel HD Graphics" display driver for all applications instead of the "no acceleration" or "forward context" drivers that probably crash them?





Help would be greatly appreciated.

I posted same thread on Intel forums but they won't answer...

maru00
02-01-2011, 11:51 AM
Hmm I see this forum is as helpful as Intel's... nice.

mhagain
02-01-2011, 12:22 PM
Intel graphics and OpenGL really should be a FAQ entry, but anyway, short answer is that OpenGL support on Intel is known-bad and - in general terms - unless an application is specifically coded to take account of this, it's not unreasonable to expect problems.

There are plenty of examples in the drivers section of this forum where people are having problems with Intel, and no real solutions exist.

The real solution I'm afraid is to ditch Intel and go for something with a real GPU. I know that doesn't help you because you're on a laptop, and it's a double bummer if you've just bought it and can't return it.

The only other option is that if an application has a Direct3D mode you should use that instead. Intel's D3D support is far superior to their OpenGL support (still can't touch a real GPU) and gives reliable and predictable behaviour.

maru00
02-01-2011, 02:28 PM
Wow, thanks.

So this is probably why they aren't answering me at Intel's forums. :)

But if in all manuals and technical papers they state that Intel HD GMA supports OpenGL, then isn't this some sort of "non-compliance with the description"?

mhagain
02-01-2011, 06:19 PM
Yeah, OpenGL has conformance testing which in theory should pevent this kind of thing from happening, but in practice it doesn't seem to be working (it's not so long ago that ATI hardware was also seriously troublesome). Microsoft have driver certification, and it serves a similar purpose (at least for the purposes of this discussion) but it does seem more effective.

There are also differences in the architectures which make D3D drivers simpler to write (D3D only supports what's actually on the hardware whereas OpenGL must expose the full API, a D3D driver is split in 2 and the manufacturer only provides half of it whereas the manufacturer must supply the full OpenGL driver), so if you've got a company that doesn't seem to care much about quality 3D acceleration you can what their priority is going to be.

ZbuffeR
02-02-2011, 01:15 AM
That does not mean Intel D3D support is perfect (far from it), just noticeably better than GL.

V-man
02-02-2011, 08:15 AM
3D Studio Max use to support 3 renderers : Heidi, OpenGL and Direct3D. By default, it chooses GL. It would probably be in Option or Preferences. Weeb search it.

mhagain
02-02-2011, 08:16 AM
That does not mean Intel D3D support is perfect (far from it), just noticeably better than GL.

Quite true, and it is fair to mention that.

It's also fair to mention that OpenGL's architecture gives it advantages that D3D just cannot have, such as extensibility and better compatibility through different revisions of the API.

maru00
02-03-2011, 01:28 PM
In 3DS Max Direct3D works fine except for wireframe objects so I tried OpenGL and it either crashes after startup or freezes when I add more objects to the scene.

It's sad that Intel states that GMA HD supports OpenGL well and that they don't help at their message boards.

Leith Bade
02-06-2011, 05:19 PM
I'm surprised the ARB don't kick people out of OpenGL if they don't take a reasonable effort to support OpenGL and be fully compliant.

At a minimum they should ban the advertisement of a GPU stating it supports OpenGL if it is not compliant to the spec (within reason).

NeXEkho
02-10-2011, 06:47 PM
Not understanding personally why laptops are shipping with monster processors, oodles of RAM and a rubbish graphics card. I bought this laptop because it was about all I could afford. I don't care for dual core or 3Gb, give me a 9400M at least. Not this HD4250 pile of rubbish that can't run Unreal 3 or Oblivion at an acceptable framerate on bottom settings whilst the processor and RAM idle at under 60% usage.

And don't get me started on modern screens... gone are the crystal clear, matte, high-res displays that look perfect from any angle, everything ships with this reflective junk that has no perfect viewing angle - the black is blue from one spot and whites are grey from another. And there's your silhouette squinting back at you.

maru00
02-22-2011, 10:16 AM
At least some of them are pretty cheap but I totally agree with you.

Such laptops are great for basic computer graphics and other processor and ram-eating applications but my problem is why Intel lie to users. It's like saying "hey our graphics card supports 1080p HD resolution, 32bit colour depth and pixel shaders" and after you buy it they say "oh it only supports VGA resolution, 256 colours and can only handle DOS games, sorry". But yeah, you can still run 3ds max and photoshop pretty smooth... with those settings.

mhagain
02-22-2011, 11:42 AM
The thing is though that those laptops aren't really meant for intensive graphical usage. Playing some DVDs, running some simplistic games, and accelerating the Vista/Win7 desktop is about all the 3D chips are good for. And in total fairness there is plenty of evidence available online to those who do their research in advance of purchasing.

bbear
02-22-2011, 01:57 PM
Wow, I am so glad to have come across this discussion as I believe that my sons Toshiba laptop is suffering from exactly the same problems.

A week after getting the laptop for his birthday, he went out at bought a game called 'Minecraft' but was really disappointed when it wouldn't run. It won't even start due to java erroring out, complaining about bad display drivers.

I have done my research and found that the processor in his computer, i3-380M 'supports' OpenGL 2.1 (well, according to Intel documentation), which is enough to run the game. I have installed the latest Intel Generic Display Driver and it doesn't help. OpenGL Extension viewer tells us that it is still running the Microsoft Generic driver, OpenGL 1.1.0

The laptop is running Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit. So far I have not found a way of preventing the Microsoft Generic Display driver from being loaded. There was a post to the Minecraft forums to a hack to the registry to stop the Microsoft driver being loaded but the poster said not to do this if it was onboard video for some reason.

Unfortunately I am three days over the date where I would have been able to return the laptop for a full refund.

If anyone knows how to stop the Microsoft driver being loaded I would love to hear from them.

mhagain
02-22-2011, 04:01 PM
The laptop is running Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit. So far I have not found a way of preventing the Microsoft Generic Display driver from being loaded. There was a post to the Minecraft forums to a hack to the registry to stop the Microsoft driver being loaded but the poster said not to do this if it was onboard video for some reason.
So far as I'm aware Intel only supports OpenGL on 32-bit Windows. Another rung up the ladder of suck. :(

bbear
02-22-2011, 05:26 PM
seems like it's going from bad to worse. What are Intel playing at?

I didn't buy the laptop for gaming, but my son isn't really asking for much when he says he would like to play Minecraft on it. From what I have seen in youtube videos of the game, it should not be pushing the 3D capabilities of the i3.

I find the Intel marking hype for the i3 and their 'HD video' extremely misleading/deceiving.

For my son's laptop, I don't suppose he really cares if it's running 64 or 32bit, so maybe I can use the Toshiba restore disks to change it to running 32bit.

Before I do that though, I am going to wait for Toshiba technical support to get back to me. They have escalated the problem to tier3 support. I think they are taking the problem seriously and would like to see a resolution themselves. To be honest, before I got on the phone to them, I don't think they were aware that there was any problem with running OpenGL on their laptops.

maru00
02-26-2011, 04:28 AM
So far as I'm aware Intel only supports OpenGL on 32-bit Windows. Another rung up the ladder of suck. :(
32bit only?

:eek:

kyle_
02-26-2011, 04:41 AM
So far as I'm aware Intel only supports OpenGL on 32-bit Windows. Another rung up the ladder of suck. :(
Highly unlikely.
Where did you read that?

bbear
02-27-2011, 03:39 PM
I managed to get my sons laptop swapped for another Toshiba. The new one has i5-480M CPU, but more importantly it has ATI graphics! (ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5470). I was very fortunate as it was past the official max number of days I had to return it for refund.

The new laptop (L635-07N) worked out of the box. OpenGl extension viewer confirms that it is running version 3.2. My son is very happy now that he can play Minecraft.

If Toshiba get back to me with a workaround for my original laptop (the one with just the i3, but no ATI graphics) I will update this thread.

anisotropic
02-27-2011, 03:45 PM
So far as I'm aware Intel only supports OpenGL on 32-bit Windows. Another rung up the ladder of suck. :(
Intel does support OpenGL 3 on 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows XP, VIsta, 7.
You can always download recent drivers at support pages of intel.com

kRogue
02-28-2011, 12:28 AM
Intel does support OpenGL 3 on 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows XP, VIsta, 7.


um no. Intel GPU's do support some extensions that are core in GL3 (floating point textures and framebuffer objects), but GL3 (native integer support, texture buffer objects, uniform buffer objects and transform feedback), not a freaking chance, take a look at http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles...ets-and-beyond/ (http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/opengl-extensions-supported-in-intel-4-series-express-chipsets-and-beyond/).

The new Sandy Bridge GPU's are supposed to have GL3 support (I remember coming across that one day), but the laptops with Intel GPU's out now are, more or less, like a epic low-level mobile GeForce6.

Intel has a historically long record of poor GPU's: poor drivers and poor performance. I would love for Sandy Bridge to prove me wrong, but I am not holding my breath.

mhagain
02-28-2011, 06:09 AM
Hmmm, I'm pretty sure that someone else posted it as a reply to another thread, but I'm prepared to stand corrected.

JoshKlint
03-06-2011, 02:25 PM
If I go to Fry's, almost every computer will have 4-6 CPU cores, at least 4 gb RAM, and an Intel integrated piece of [censored]. Any computer that has a midrange GPU is marketed as a "gaming machine" and costs an extra $500.

All they'd have to do is put a GEForce 8800, a card from four years ago that costs less than $100, in any of those machines and it would be a gaming monster.

None of the computers sold have a modern GPU, like a GEForce 480 or even anything as fast as a GEForce 9800.

What the hell is wrong with the manufacturers? Games are one of the biggest drivers of hardware improvement, yet consumers are being given no choice. No wonder PC sales are dropping and consoles are taking over.

What I really don't understand is why do they load these machines up with CPU cores and RAM the user won't need, an totally ignore the GPU? I don't buy that the idea that the market doesn't care about games.

Aleksandar
03-06-2011, 03:53 PM
If I go to Fry's, almost every computer will have 4-6 CPU cores, at least 4 gb RAM, and an Intel integrated piece of [censored]. Any computer that has a midrange GPU is marketed as a "gaming machine" and costs an extra $500.
Extra hardware costs extra money. It is a simple and clear fact.


All they'd have to do is put a GEForce 8800, a card from four years ago that costs less than $100, in any of those machines and it would be a gaming monster.
You can't put a desktop graphics cards into a notebook. They require too much power, dissipate to much heat and require too much space inside a case.


None of the computers sold have a modern GPU, like a GEForce 480 or even anything as fast as a GEForce 9800.
Once again you are trying to put desktop cards inside notebooks. :)
There are many notebooks with powerful cards. For example: Dell Studio XPS 15 notebooks have Nvidia GeForce GT 435M with 2GB of dedicated memory. GT 435M is a Fermi based card (GL4.1 compatible) with 2GB of RAM. Most of us don't have card with 2GB even in the desktop machines.

And there are also netbooks with powerful cards. Asus eeePC 1015PM has NV ION2 dedicated graphics (along with Intel GMA 3150). Its price is about $350, which is fantastic for an Atom N550 (dual core with hyper-threading) based netbook.


What the hell is wrong with the manufacturers? Games are one of the biggest drivers of hardware improvement, yet consumers are being given no choice. No wonder PC sales are dropping and consoles are taking over.
Says who? There are plenty of gaming notebooks. This is not the place where I should list all available offerings.


What I really don't understand is why do they load these machines up with CPU cores and RAM the user won't need, an totally ignore the GPU? I don't buy that the idea that the market doesn't care about games. Because many of notebook users don't need powerful graphics, but appreciate long battery life. New OSes (like Win7) require at least 2GB of RAM in order to function properly. And CPU power is newer enough. :)

bbear
03-08-2011, 06:38 PM
I just wanted to mention that I was able to return my sons Toshiba L635 laptop for refund. I then was able to buy another L635, one which is made exclusively for Staples by Toshiba. What caught my eye was not only that it was i5 (the old one was i3) but also that it had ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5470 Graphics, it was a brand new model and was on promotion with $100 off so I got it at the same price as the i3 one :-)

Anyway, I was happy to discover that Minecraft runs perfectly out of the box with no OpenGL issues so far.

I got a call from Toshiba support to say that they are still working on the original L635 and the OpenGl issue. They believe that it should work with the i3 which was installed in that particular laptop. They promised to let me know if they find a solution.

anisotropic
03-20-2011, 04:14 PM
Intel does support OpenGL 3 on 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows XP, VIsta, 7.


The new Sandy Bridge GPU's are supposed to have GL3 support (I remember coming across that one day),

And I was talking about just Sandy Bridge, that fully supports 3.0

PkK
03-21-2011, 12:49 PM
Intel has a historically long record of poor GPU's: poor drivers and poor performance. I would love for Sandy Bridge to prove me wrong, but I am not holding my breath.

To be fair, it's only the Windows drivers that are bad.

Philipp

PkK
03-21-2011, 01:05 PM
If I go to Fry's, almost every computer will have 4-6 CPU cores, at least 4 gb RAM, and an Intel integrated piece of [censored]. Any computer that has a midrange GPU is marketed as a "gaming machine" and costs an extra $500.

All they'd have to do is put a GEForce 8800, a card from four years ago that costs less than $100, in any of those machines and it would be a gaming monster.

None of the computers sold have a modern GPU, like a GEForce 480 or even anything as fast as a GEForce 9800.

What the hell is wrong with the manufacturers? Games are one of the biggest drivers of hardware improvement, yet consumers are being given no choice. No wonder PC sales are dropping and consoles are taking over.

What I really don't understand is why do they load these machines up with CPU cores and RAM the user won't need, an totally ignore the GPU? I don't buy that the idea that the market doesn't care about games.

The situation seems to be changing with AMD's Fusion, but for now:

I use a laptop I bought in January 2008, over three years ago. I have since upgraded CPU, RAM and HDD. It still has the original Intel(R) 965GM. It will run for 5 hours on the battery, when doing e.g. programming work (which includes occassional periods of full CPU utilization when compiling).
That GeForce 8800 you suggest would alone drain the battery in far less time than the whole system does now. I bought a laptop because I want mobility, which includes running on the battery for a long time.
The GPU gives me OpenGL 2.1, and quite some additional extensions; I have not encountered any driver bugs or stability problems in my current setup.

Philipp

JoshKlint
03-26-2011, 10:57 AM
Extra hardware costs extra money. It is a simple and clear fact.
Bullshit. I can buy a GPU at retail prices for less than $100 that would give 10-20 times the performance and have working drivers. You don't think Dell could get a better deal than that when buying in massive quantities, and that consumers would pay an extra $50 to have a computer that works as advertised?


You can't put a desktop graphics cards into a notebook. They require too much power, dissipate to much heat and require too much space inside a case.
I'm talking about desktop machines.


Once again you are trying to put desktop cards inside notebooks. :)
Remind me about the part where I mentioned notebooks?

mhagain
03-26-2011, 02:06 PM
OK, here's the story. The likes of Dell, HP, etc primarily sell to business customers. For the most part, business customers do not need any graphics performance beyond that required to draw the Windows desktop and a few office apps.

A decent-ish GPU that outperforms Intel stuff may be had for only $20-$30 extra perhaps, but even that price can't compete with the Intel stuff. If you're buying 1000 PCs then it's a cost of $20,000 to $30,000 extra. And when a seller is trying to undercut the competition that extra $20,000 to $30,000 is a risk that they just cannot afford to take. They're probably already on a very tight profit margin and it may even be enough to push them into loss territory. Not gonna happen.

The other major customer base is casual users. These are people who just want to browse the internet, update their Facebook, read their email, maybe watch a few DVDs, keep their shopping lists, organise fixtures for their football club, download some MP3s, and so on. Stuff regular people do with their computer in other words (and I didn't even mention porn!) They don't actually need any graphics perf either - the most graphically intense thing they do with their computer is play solitaire.

Taken together these make up the vast majority of customers who buy PCs or laptops with Intel graphics in. These are the customer base.

So now we come to customers who do have a need for better graphics perf. Enthusiasts, some programmers, the game industry (be it hobbyist, indie or professional), gamers themselves, CAD users, etc. A specialist market (even moreso in the case of gamers now that consoles are dominating more and more).

Sometimes you get stung. You don't do your research, you don't check the spec, you underestimate what you'll be using the machine for, you don't ask the right questions, you let the sales person pull a smooth one on you, whatever. It hurts and you can be mad about it, but hopefully the damage done isn't too great.

But you learn your lesson. And you say to yourself: "the next time I want a machine with decent graphics perf, I'll freakin' well buy a machine with decent graphics perf".

maru00
03-28-2011, 09:25 AM
Ok, mhagian, you wrote lots of obvious stuff but it's not the topic of this thread. My problem is why Intel is lying to their customers that Intel GMA HD fully supports OpenGL while it clearly does not.

mhagain
03-28-2011, 01:04 PM
Well ATI did it - and got away with it - for a long time as well; a time during which they were consistently in the top 2 players on the market. Back in the early days of consumer-level 3D acceleration almost every manufacturer did it. Hell, it could even be argued that NVIDIA still do it owing to their fairly lax acceptance of non-compliant code (making NVIDIA more or less worthless for developing on too, IMO).

In other words it's really nothing new.

To be honest - and I know it's cold comfort - if an app vendor is targetting a customer base that it knows uses Intels, then the app vendor should ensure that their program runs at least tolerably on Intels. And the vendor should be banging on Intel's door and yelling at them all the time too, because making the customer be the one who suffers in both the short term and the long term is never a good idea.

naf456
08-23-2011, 05:28 AM
Hi...I see this post is old... I'm 16 and am interested in OpenGl...I just bought a new laptop- an Asus a52f...it's nice, And It's just about what I can afford...I know the Intel GMA HD graphics are crap...I wanted to get a Dell vostro with ATI 6540, but it's alittle out of my price range...My soul purpose was to build indie OPenGL games on the machine, and now it looks like I have a £350 paper weight- my old laptop Is just as fast(HP NC4200)... There is NO excuse for intel to be shipping such [censored] drivers.and it makes me angry to see that there pure lazyness is making these laptops extremely low in performance...([censored] intel)

BionicBytes
08-23-2011, 08:48 AM
Intel have a track record of not supporting OpenGL properly on all of their previous products.

On the other hand, a little research would have shown you that - and saved you a lot of money :(

If you are stuck with the laptop there are two things you could try:
1. Sell the laptop to a friend and purchase one with nVidia or AMD graphics
2. Attempt Direct3D development instead.

I know option 2 sounds bad, but Intel do support it properly and the newer generation of chips are capable.

PkK
09-08-2011, 01:37 PM
Intel have a track record of not supporting OpenGL properly on all of their previous products.

On the other hand, a little research would have shown you that - and saved you a lot of money :(

If you are stuck with the laptop there are two things you could try:
1. Sell the laptop to a friend and purchase one with nVidia or AMD graphics
2. Attempt Direct3D development instead.

I know option 2 sounds bad, but Intel do support it properly and the newer generation of chips are capable.

3. Use GNU/Linux.

Philipp

maru00
09-16-2011, 12:29 AM
On the other hand, a little research would have shown you that - and saved you a lot of money :(

Too bad Intel state everywhere that their products support OpenGL. It's not so easy to find such information.

By the way, still no solution for my problems. :)

mhagain
09-16-2011, 07:04 AM
3. Use GNU/Linux.

Philipp


How is that an option?

If the driver is crap and the hardware is incapable then surely OS will make absolutely no difference whatsoever? Even if the GNU/Linux driver is somehow anyway better, the hardware will still remain incapable. OpenGL is not software.

ZbuffeR
09-16-2011, 08:02 AM
option 2. and 3. are the same (ie. bypassing crappy Windows GL drivers made by Intel).

PkK
09-17-2011, 08:58 AM
3. Use GNU/Linux.

Philipp


How is that an option?

If the driver is crap and the hardware is incapable then surely OS will make absolutely no difference whatsoever? Even if the GNU/Linux driver is somehow anyway better, the hardware will still remain incapable. OpenGL is not software.

When the hardware doesn't support feature X or is too slow to do Y at acceptable framerates then using DirectX won't help either. The Intel GNU/Linux driver is one of the best OpenGL GNU/Linux drivers. Among the free ones it IMO is the best (even though AMD has been catching up).

Philipp

mhagain
09-17-2011, 09:10 AM
I'm not saying that using D3D will help; options 2 and 3 are also equivalent because they don't deal with the problem of poor performance (even though Intel's D3D performance is actually quite good it still can't match a real GPU) or features unsupported in hardware. Both just substitute one higher level technology for another but the underlying fault remains.

maru00
11-11-2011, 07:58 AM
Unbelievable thing just happened. Intel upgraded their GMA drivers and it seems most OpenGL apps work more or less fine. Bravo!

Aleksandar
11-12-2011, 04:35 PM
Please, could you provide us with the list of GL extensions supported by the latest Intel's drivers?

maru00
11-19-2011, 01:41 AM
Here's the latest release notes but they didn't provide much information on extensions:
http://downloadmirror.intel.com/20391/eng/relnotes_gfx_2509.pdf


OpenGL driver enhanced with combination of one new extension, performance optimizations, and fixes to enable and/or improve user experience. The following applications benefit from these enhancements:

btw, OpenGl Extensions Viewer still doesn't work fine

Aleksandar
11-19-2011, 03:52 AM
Would you execute this (https://sites.google.com/site/opengltutorialsbyaks/download/extension-viewer?pli=1) application, press Save button and post the results?

Intel claims GL 3.0 is supported. I would really like to see the extension list.

Thank you!

maru00
12-02-2011, 09:33 AM
here you go:



OpenGL version: 2.1.0 - Build 8.15.10.2509
Vendor: Intel
Renderer: Intel(R) HD Graphics
DLL:
Device:
-------------------------------------------
OpenGL 1.2: [ 100% - 8/8 ]
OpenGL 1.3: [ 88% - 8/9 ]
OpenGL 1.4: [ 93% - 14/15 ]
OpenGL 1.5: [ 100% - 3/3 ]
OpenGL 2.0: [ 100% - 9/9 ]
OpenGL 2.1: [ 100% - 2/2 ]
OpenGL 3.0: [ 66% - 14/21 ]
OpenGL 3.1: [ 85% - 6/7 ]
OpenGL 3.2: [ 55% - 5/9 ]
OpenGL 3.3: [ 10% - 1/10 ]
OpenGL 4.0: [ 0% - 0/13 ]
OpenGL 4.1: [ 0% - 0/11 ]
OpenGL 4.2: [ 0% - 0/11 ]
Spec score: [ 62% - 70/113 ]
Func score: [ 111/491 ]
-------------------------------------------
Not implemented extensions in OpenGL 1.2:



-------------------------------------------

Not implemented extensions in OpenGL 1.3:

GL_ARB_multisample



-------------------------------------------

Not implemented extensions in OpenGL 1.4:

GL_ARB_texture_mirrored_repeat



-------------------------------------------

Not implemented extensions in OpenGL 1.5:



-------------------------------------------

Not implemented extensions in OpenGL 2.0:



-------------------------------------------

Not implemented extensions in OpenGL 2.1:



-------------------------------------------

Not implemented extensions in OpenGL 3.0:

GL_EXT_gpu_shader4

GL_NV_depth_buffer_float

GL_NV_half_float

GL_EXT_framebuffer_multisample

GL_EXT_texture_integer

GL_EXT_texture_compression_rgtc

GL_EXT_framebuffer_sRGB



-------------------------------------------

Not implemented extensions in OpenGL 3.1:

GL_ARB_texture_buffer_object



-------------------------------------------

Not implemented extensions in OpenGL 3.2:

GL_ARB_fragment_coord_conventions

GL_ARB_provoking_vertex

GL_ARB_texture_multisample

GL_ARB_geometry_shader4



-------------------------------------------

Not implemented extensions in OpenGL 3.3:

GL_ARB_shading_language_include

GL_ARB_blend_func_extended

GL_ARB_explicit_attrib_location

GL_ARB_occlusion_query2

GL_ARB_shader_bit_encoding

GL_ARB_texture_rgb10_a2ui

GL_ARB_texture_swizzle

GL_ARB_timer_query

GL_ARB_vertex_type_2_10_10_10_rev



-------------------------------------------

Not implemented extensions in OpenGL 4.0:

GL_ARB_draw_buffers_blend

GL_ARB_sample_shading

GL_ARB_texture_cube_map_array

GL_ARB_texture_gather

GL_ARB_texture_query_lod

GL_ARB_draw_indirect

GL_ARB_gpu_shader5

GL_ARB_gpu_shader_fp64

GL_ARB_shader_subroutine

GL_ARB_tessellation_shader

GL_ARB_texture_buffer_object_rgb32

GL_ARB_transform_feedback2

GL_ARB_transform_feedback3



-------------------------------------------

Not implemented extensions in OpenGL 4.1:

GL_ARB_ES2_compatibility

GL_ARB_get_program_binary

GL_ARB_separate_shader_objects

GL_ARB_shader_precision

GL_ARB_vertex_attrib_64bit

GL_ARB_viewport_array

WGL_ARB_create_context_robustness

GL_ARB_cl_event

GL_ARB_debug_output

GL_ARB_robustness

GL_ARB_shader_stencil_export



-------------------------------------------

Not implemented extensions in OpenGL 4.2:

GL_ARB_base_instance

GL_ARB_shading_language_420pack

GL_ARB_transform_feedback_instanced

GL_ARB_compressed_texture_pixel_storage

GL_ARB_conservative_depth

GL_ARB_internalformat_query

GL_ARB_map_buffer_alignment

GL_ARB_shader_atomic_counters

GL_ARB_shader_image_load_store

GL_ARB_shading_language_packing

GL_ARB_texture_storage



-------------------------------------------

EXT:
----
GL_EXT_blend_minmax
GL_EXT_blend_subtract
GL_EXT_blend_color
GL_EXT_abgr
GL_EXT_texture3D
GL_EXT_clip_volume_hint
GL_EXT_compiled_vertex_array
GL_SGIS_texture_edge_clamp
GL_SGIS_generate_mipmap
GL_EXT_draw_range_elements
GL_SGIS_texture_lod
GL_EXT_rescale_normal
GL_EXT_packed_pixels
GL_EXT_texture_edge_clamp
GL_EXT_separate_specular_color
GL_ARB_multitexture
GL_EXT_texture_env_combine
GL_EXT_bgra
GL_EXT_blend_func_separate
GL_EXT_secondary_color
GL_EXT_fog_coord
GL_EXT_texture_env_add
GL_ARB_texture_cube_map
GL_ARB_transpose_matrix
GL_ARB_texture_env_add
GL_IBM_texture_mirrored_repeat
GL_EXT_multi_draw_arrays
GL_NV_blend_square
GL_ARB_texture_compression
GL_3DFX_texture_compression_FXT1
GL_EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic
GL_ARB_texture_border_clamp
GL_ARB_point_parameters
GL_ARB_texture_env_combine
GL_ARB_texture_env_dot3
GL_ARB_texture_env_crossbar
GL_EXT_texture_compression_s3tc
GL_ARB_shadow
GL_ARB_window_pos
GL_EXT_shadow_funcs
GL_EXT_stencil_wrap
GL_ARB_vertex_program
GL_EXT_texture_rectangle
GL_ARB_fragment_program
GL_EXT_stencil_two_side
GL_ATI_separate_stencil
GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object
GL_EXT_texture_lod_bias
GL_ARB_occlusion_query
GL_ARB_fragment_shader
GL_ARB_shader_objects
GL_ARB_shading_language_100
GL_ARB_texture_non_power_of_two
GL_ARB_vertex_shader
GL_NV_texgen_reflection
GL_ARB_point_sprite
GL_ARB_fragment_program_shadow
GL_EXT_blend_equation_separate
GL_ARB_depth_texture
GL_ARB_texture_rectangle
GL_ARB_draw_buffers
GL_ARB_color_buffer_float
GL_ARB_half_float_pixel
GL_ARB_texture_float
GL_ARB_pixel_buffer_object
GL_EXT_framebuffer_object
GL_ARB_draw_instanced
GL_ARB_half_float_vertex
GL_EXT_draw_buffers2
GL_WIN_swap_hint
GL_EXT_texture_sRGB
GL_EXT_packed_float
GL_EXT_texture_shared_exponent
GL_ARB_texture_rg
GL_ARB_texture_compression_rgtc
GL_NV_conditional_render
GL_EXT_texture_swizzle
GL_ARB_sync
GL_ARB_framebuffer_sRGB
GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil
GL_ARB_depth_buffer_float
GL_EXT_transform_feedback
GL_EXT_framebuffer_blit
GL_ARB_framebuffer_object
GL_EXT_texture_array
GL_ARB_map_buffer_range
GL_EXT_texture_snorm
GL_INTEL_performance_queries
GL_ARB_copy_buffer
GL_ARB_sampler_objects
GL_NV_primitive_restart
GL_ARB_seamless_cube_map
GL_ARB_uniform_buffer_object
GL_ARB_depth_clamp
GL_ARB_vertex_array_bgra
GL_ARB_draw_elements_base_vertex
GL_EXT_gpu_program_parameters
GL_ARB_compatibility
GL_ARB_vertex_array_object

WGL:
----
WGL_EXT_depth_float
WGL_ARB_buffer_region
WGL_ARB_extensions_string
WGL_ARB_make_current_read
WGL_ARB_pixel_format
WGL_ARB_pbuffer
WGL_EXT_extensions_string
WGL_EXT_swap_control
WGL_ARB_pixel_format_float
WGL_ARB_framebuffer_sRGB
WGL_ARB_create_context
WGL_EXT_pixel_format_packed_float

Aleksandar
12-02-2011, 10:50 AM
Thank you, maru00!

It is strange that you don't have support for multisampling.
Five extensions are missing (compared to Geeks3D's report):
- GL_ARB_multisample
- GL_EXT_framebuffer_multisample
- GL_EXT_texture_integer
- GL_ARB_fragment_coord_conventions
- WGL_ARB_multisample

All in all, Intel's support for OpenGL is much better now, but still many extensions even from 3.0 are not supported. It is great that ARB_sync is supported, but pity ARB_timer_query is not.

cdizzle
12-06-2011, 02:33 AM
Hello. I read through this thread after trying to run an openGL application which failed to launch because it required the extension GL_EXT_bindable_uniform.

I have installed the latest Intel drivers, and openGL Extension Viewer lists more or less the same extensions that were posted above - obviously missing GL_EXT_bindable_uniform.

I attempted to research this particular extension, and found out that it interacts with GL_EXT_geometry_shader4 (also not listed in Extension Viewer). Someone on the Intel forums said that the Intel HD graphics supports Shader Model 4 (which I assume the geometry_shader4 extension refers to), so I'm a little confused.

My question is, is this EXT_bindable_uniform something that is possible to get with Intel HD graphics? Is it likely to ever show up with future drivers, or is the hardware incapable? I'd appreciate any clarification. Thanks for your time.

aqnuep
12-06-2011, 02:49 AM
EXT_geometry_shader4 and EXT_bindable_uniform are early versions of the geometry shader and uniform buffer functionality supported by OpenGL 3.2 and exposed as ARB_geometry_shader4 and ARB_uniform_buffer_object.

The features in core OpenGL, the ARB and the EXT extensions are not functionally the same but expose the same hardware.

Actually supporting the EXT versions of the features is not a must thus I think it is unlikely it is supported by Intel.

What application are you trying to use? It should be some old one, considering it uses the "ancient" EXT extensions.

cdizzle
12-06-2011, 03:15 AM
Wow, incredibly fast reply - thank you.

It's actually not an old application at all, but a brand new one: The Foundry's Mari 1.4: http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/mari/

Now, I completely understand that trying to run a production graphics application that is meant to run on Fermi Quadros and the like on an integrated Intel graphics chip is kind of stupid, but I was hoping to be able to install this on my laptop for times when I am away from my workstation. Considering that the Intel HD 3000 is openGL 3.0 compliant and can use up to 1.7GB of RAM (confirmed by my graphics driver's properties window) gave me slight hopes that this would be possible.

OpenGL Extension Viewer also doesn't list ARB_geometry_shader4 or ARB_uniform_buffer_object. Not sure if that is important or what you meant at all, as I don't completely grasp all this extension stuff (obviously). Is there anything I can do? Is there any point in checking future drivers for these extensions?

Thank you for your help and quick response. Would really love to get this software running. Cheers.

EDIT: I'd also be happy to provide the list of extensions that the viewer lists if you think it might help at all. Thanks, again.

aqnuep
12-06-2011, 05:00 AM
Unfortunately, if your driver does not support those extensions then it is very unlikely you will be able to run the application.

What I wanted to point out with the extensions mentioned is that there is more standard way to use those hardware features than the EXT extensions and even if Intel will have OpenGL 3.2 support they may decide that they don't want to implement the EXT extensions as they are not part of the standard and as such it is very unlikely that the application will run on Intel even with a new driver that finally adds better support for OpenGL 3.x.

cdizzle
12-06-2011, 09:31 AM
Ah, I understand now. Thank you very much for explaining it to me. Strange that one of the leaders in visual effects software creation (it comes from Weta Digital - you know, Lord of the Rings, Avatar, etc.) would stray from the standards. It was a long shot, anyway. I appreciate your time and help. Cheers.

maru00
12-06-2011, 10:33 AM
No offence but WETA probably have better PCs than you. ;)

Another point for Intel: VRay RT (real time preview of a rendered image with gi, raytracing and other effects) works fine. It's a little slow and overheats my cpu/gpu but it does work.

cdizzle
12-06-2011, 11:04 AM
Oh, of course. Like I said, the software is really designed to be run on higher level Quadro cards - I was just hoping that it would at least launch on my laptop.

The fact that it ran with VrayRT and other GPU renderers just served to make me get my hopes up. Alas, I'll just have to run it on a machine whose graphics card alone cost more than my laptop. Thanks for the input.

malexander
12-07-2011, 08:06 AM
On the Mari Systems requirement page, it notes that only Nvidia cards are supported. This suggests that it uses CUDA, leaving AMD and Intel out in the cold.

maru00
08-12-2012, 02:14 PM
I must admin that now with latest drivers and latest version of OpenGL extension viewer all tests are passed, even OpenGL 2.1. Cool.