Re: [Public WebGL] Is WebGL2 Effectively Dead?

[Mark Callow <khronos@callow.im>]

On Mar 8, 2018, at 19:21, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:42 PM, Nicolas Capens <capn@google.com> wrote:

It's not a mystery. 36% of mobile devices running Android don't support OpenGL ES 3.0.

Since most people replace their mobile every 2 years or so, it would be interesting to know why more than a third of handsets more than 6 years after the introduction of a new standard (7 if you count the first draft, 8 if you count first planning phase), are not compatible with that industrywide standard.

I don’t. But on the other hand the Android mobile I purchased just over 5 years ago supports OpenGL ES 3.0.

 

 Similarly, the desktop and laptop GPU market has been dominated by integrated GPUs for the last decade, and a large chunk of them have issues that require blacklisting WebGL 2 support.

Similarly it would be interesting to know why Intel is selling garbage hardware en-masse (and continues to do so).  … rest of rant deleted for brevity ...

I don’t know anything about why WebGL apparently needs to be blacklisted on a large chunk of integrated GPUs. I do know that Intel has been regularly making successful OpenGL and Vulkan CTS (Conformance Test) submissions for several years now. I also know that on the laptop I purchased 3 years ago with Intel HD 5000 graphics I could use OpenGL 4.3 out of the box in Windows and both it and Vulkan in Linux without issues. Since the days of the GMA950(?) the quality of Intel's drivers has greatly increased. I think “continues to do so” (sell "garbage hardware”) is not a true reflection of the current state.

My only complaint about Intel is that their Windows team refuses to support Vulkan on quite a few devices that are clearly capable of it, c/f the HD 5000.

Regards

    -Mark

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP