lgdt
asked on
Direct GPU programming: documentation wanted
I have heard, that the GPU can be programmed in the same way as the CPU, but i don't know whether it is true.
If it is, I would like to access my NV17 GPU directly (without D3D and HAL), like the Detonator driver does, but I haven't found any documentation on the internet about how it can be done.
Can you help me?
If it is, I would like to access my NV17 GPU directly (without D3D and HAL), like the Detonator driver does, but I haven't found any documentation on the internet about how it can be done.
Can you help me?
you might like nvidia's cg ( c for graphics ). check it out at http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=cg
ASKER
i don't think you can directly access the gpu with cg, but correct me if i'm wrong.
(i'd like to delete the polygon rasterizer :), and write my own non-polygonal rasterization algorithm if it's possible, but if it is not, the TnL acceleration would be still good, if it is really fast (lighting for every pixel on the screen))
(i'd like to delete the polygon rasterizer :), and write my own non-polygonal rasterization algorithm if it's possible, but if it is not, the TnL acceleration would be still good, if it is really fast (lighting for every pixel on the screen))
well, supposedly cg is a high level language but as far as i know it's open source ( kind of nvidia ) and thus you should be able to download the compiler source and examine how they are accessing the gpu. furthermore, i believe the whole purpose of cg is to allow the programmer to be more free while developing code so may be you might be able to do whatever you want to right in cg
just an idea... i'm not a big graphics programmer myself; more like a scientific computing guy so i am perfectly happy and satisfied with my opengl 1.0 ;-)
just an idea... i'm not a big graphics programmer myself; more like a scientific computing guy so i am perfectly happy and satisfied with my opengl 1.0 ;-)
ASKER
no, sorry.
i think non-polygonal rasterization could be better (i do not want to have an argument, this is just my opinion), and now i'm searching for hardware support, because the CPU itself is too slow for both of these techniques (i haven't used MMX, 3DNow! and SSE yet, but these will help too).
i think non-polygonal rasterization could be better (i do not want to have an argument, this is just my opinion), and now i'm searching for hardware support, because the CPU itself is too slow for both of these techniques (i haven't used MMX, 3DNow! and SSE yet, but these will help too).
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
A GPU assembly language specification would be very good. If nobody can give me one, I will accept your answer. :)
ASKER
As i promised, i have accepted your answer.
sorry you couldn't find something better...
I'm looking for low level GPU programming info as well. Did you find anything so far?
ASKER
no :( im not interested in this f*cking PC any more. i think it is just like sh*t. buy a PlayStation 2, it is a well thought-out computer, which is FASTER than PCs.