The Khornos Group probably wants some advice from graphics developers because they ultimately want to market to them, as the future platform's success depends on their applications. If you develop games or other software (web browsers?) then you can give your feedback. If not, then it's probably best to leave responses to its target demographic.
As for the questions themselves, first and foremost they ask if you are (or were) an active software developer. From there, they ask you to score your opinion on OpenGL, OpenGL ES, and WebGL. They then ask whether you value “Open” or “GL” in the title. They then ask you whether you feel like OpenGL, OpenGL ES, and WebGL are related APIs. They ask how you learn about the Khronos APIs. Finally, they directly ask you for name suggestions and any final commentary.
Now it is time to (metaphorically) read tea leaves. The survey seems written primarily to establish whether developers consider OpenGL, OpenGL ES, and WebGL as related libraries, and to gauge their overall interest in each. If you look at the way OpenGL ES has been developing, it has slowly brought mobile graphics into a subset of desktop GPU features. It is basically an on-ramp to full OpenGL.
We expect that, like Mantle and DirectX 12, the next OpenGL initiative will be designed around efficiently loading massively parallel processors, with a little bit of fixed-function hardware for common tasks, like rasterizing triangles into fragments. The name survey might be implying that the Next Generation OpenGL Initiative is intended to be a unified platform, for high-end, mobile, and even web. Again, modern graphics APIs are based on loading massively parallel processors as directly as possible.
If you are a graphics developer, the Khronos Group is asking for your feedback via their survey.
Leave the naming alone,
Leave the naming alone, OpenGL is just fine, work on getting the full OpenGL standard on Mobile devices, as well as the close to the metal improvements, and Get AMD to give you as much information on Mantle as possible.
Someone needs to stand up for the people that have more than one GPU on their Laptop/PC, and come up with a way for the Integrated, and discrete GPUs from various manufactures to at least be able to be used at the same time, even if the Integrated GPU is only used for GPGPU acceleration(physics, other), via OpenCL, while the discrete GPU does the graphics. In the Old mainframe days, all the hardware was made available by the OS for use all of the time, none of this ether one or the other, whereas now it’s use the integrated GPU lose use of the discrete. Hardware that is not available for use all of the time, should never be certified for the OS, and not used in the computer, if the integrated GPU is not made to be available all of the time, then give the user a option of a CPU without an integrated GPU for laptops, or fix it so the Integrated GPU can be used for computation, while the discrete GPU does the graphics.
AMD, and its HSA foundation partners are at least doing the right thing with trying to make all the heterogeneous computing components on modern devices able to be used for computation in an always on mode, via APIs and a standard HSAIL.
Lucid has something similar called MVP, but really it is the OS maker’s and the OEMs responsibility, An OS that can not use all the computational resources on a system, can not really be called an OS, GPUs are powerful vector processors they really should be available for graphics, and computation, All of the time, regardless of who manufactured them.
Actually, you can use
Actually, you can use integrated and discrete GPUs simultaneously, it just requires the developer to properly load balance. SLi and CrossFire are two methods to automate it, although they have some drawbacks for simplicity (cloned RAM, assumed to be the same performance, etc.).
I've had a project on the back burner that actually uses integrated GPUs for secondary processing tasks. I really want to get back at it…
Yes if they come from the
Yes if they come from the same GPU/SOC manufacturer, SLI and Crossfire are not open standards and part of the OS, I’m talking about Intel’s integrated product working with AMD’s or Nvidia’s discrete GPU, even if the Intel GPU is only used for OpenCL based GPGPU, while the AMD, or Nvidia product does the graphics. Lucid’s MVP software does something like this for graphics processors, Why is M$ not creating a True OS, that can utilize, all of the hardware all of the time. It is the maker of the devise’s OS who should carry the burden, of making sure that all of the devices processing capabilities can be utilized, on an always available basis. If that includes making the maker of the SOC, and the maker of the discrete work togather, under threat on not have their respective products certified to work with the OS, the so be it.
The Khronos group needs to work closely with the HSA foundation, in getting HSAIL usage across as many OS/hardware platforms, and into/integrated in all OSs, so devices can make use of all the computing resources built into them. It is way past the time where OS/GPU/Other makers should be required to make all hardware computing resources be available, ALL of the time, and be forced to make their different GPU(integrated, and discrete) provide access all of the time, via an industry standard API, and I’m not saying the GPU makers cannot have their own API, just that they should be required to support an Open Industry Standard API in addition, that allows true HSA to be realized, for those that need all of the computing power that is available on their systems.
HSA aware OSs/APIs need to be required, and all processing resources need to be available for use all the time, regardless of who made the GPU/CPU/other hardware, or the respective government device certification agencies should not approve the device for sale.
HSA is a generic computing science term, and idea, and the technology, as well as the APIs, to make HSA possible, has been there(for decades) to end this dead silicon, for lack of cooperation among the competing makers, foolishness. Not being able to use an integrated GPU for compute/graphics, at the same time as a discrete GPU, is like not having access to a CPU core, for no good reason, other than uncompetitive reasons.
HSA is for compute, not
HSA is for compute, not graphics, OpenGL is for graphics, OpenCL would be the API that needs to intergrate with HSA which has already happened.
Oh I don’t know, how about
Oh I don’t know, how about calling it open graphics library since that what it is, oh wait it’s short for opengl its already called that, changing the name would be pretty retarded right now, why does having a new version of your product warrants a new name even though its the same product just newer version
Hmm Maby the NextGL will be
Hmm Maby the NextGL will be OK 😀 or NeoGL
But OpenGL Next is OK also.
Master Race
is a good name
Master Race
is a good name