Misdetected OpenGL version for Intel HD 4000 on Linux
Milanium
Join Date: 2012-12-27 Member: 176388Members
Join Date: 2012-12-27 Member: 176388Members
I get this on startup on Linux
I think it makes no sense as I have the latest http://mesa3d.org/relnotes/9.2.2.html installed. My system_options.xml:
My Steam - System Information
Date: 11/02/2013
Time: 10:04:44 PM:
Build 259
Linux
Steam initialized
Num displays: 2
Error: OpenGL version 3.1 is required
Error: Couldn't initialize the render device.
I think it makes no sense as I have the latest http://mesa3d.org/relnotes/9.2.2.html installed. My system_options.xml:
<options>
<system>
<runs>13</runs>
<build>259</build>
</system>
<graphics>
<device>OpenGL</device>
</graphics>
</options>
My Steam - System Information
Processor Information:
Vendor: GenuineIntel
CPU Family: 0x6
CPU Model: 0x3a
CPU Stepping: 0x9
CPU Type: 0x0
Speed: 2601 Mhz
4 logical processors
2 physical processors
HyperThreading: Supported
FCMOV: Supported
SSE2: Supported
SSE3: Supported
SSSE3: Supported
SSE4a: Unsupported
SSE41: Supported
SSE42: Supported
Network Information:
Network Speed:
Operating System Version:
"openSUSE 12.3 (i586)" (32 bit)
Kernel Name: Linux
Kernel Version: 3.7.10-1.16-desktop
X Server Vendor: The X.Org Foundation
X Server Release: 11403901
X Window Manager: KWin
Steam Runtime Version: steam-runtime-release_2013-10-23
Video Card:
Driver: Intel Open Source Technology Center Mesa DRI Intel(R) Ivybridge Mobile x86/MMX/SSE2
Driver Version: 3.0 Mesa 9.2.2
OpenGL Version: 3.0
Desktop Color Depth: 24 bits per pixel
Monitor Refresh Rate: 60 Hz
VendorID Not Detected
DeviceID Not Detected
Number of Monitors: 2
Number of Video Cards Not Detected
Primary Display Resolution: 1366 x 768
Desktop Resolution: 3286 x 1080
Primary Display Size: 10,91" x 6,14" (12,48" diag)
27,7cm x 15,6cm (31,7cm diag)
Primary VRAM Not Detected
Sound card:
Audio device: Intel PantherPoint HDMI
Memory:
RAM: 3735 Mb
Miscellaneous:
UI Language: English
LANG: de_DE.UTF-8
Microphone: Not set
Total Hard Disk Space Available: 233711 Mb
Largest Free Hard Disk Block: 80628 Mb
Installed software:
Recent Failure Reports:
Comments
OpenGL Version: 3.0
according to the steam report you pasted there.
That said, ns2 does not currently run on mesa no matter what version you are using. Mesa does not support 3.1 compatibility only 3.1 core. Max has said that he will be trying to fix this shortly.
Source...
Source...
No comment.
Because that's what they have and there are no indications that integrated GPUs that meet minimum reqs are not supported on the steam store.
@Milanium Max has stated that he's working on getting the engine to work with core OpenGL 3.1, so it shouldn't be too long of a wait before you can at least get it to launch.
What are you talking about??
http://store.steampowered.com/app/4920/
"DirectX 9 compatible video card with 1GB, ATI X800, NVidia 8600 or better "
An integrated chip on the motherboard =/= a "video card" ??
Its specifically states requiring 1 GB vram.. and integrated chips do not have dedicated memory??
Then it lists the only two video card manufacturers as an example of the minimum video card needed??
Yes, as a general indicator of the performance level required by the game there are popular graphics cards listed in the minimum requirements. You could argue semantics if you wish, but that seems silly. It is widely accepted that the cards listed do not indicate the only cards that the game will run on, but provide a guideline metric by which to compare.
I could go into why there is no difference between a dedicated card vs an integrated chip when it comes to APIs, and I do acknowledge that it is against the typical gamer wisdom to consider integrated chips in any way equivalent to older generation cards. So I'll summerise the advances in PC architecture that allows for the current generation IGPs to overcome the issues typically associated with integrated GPUs and makes them more than equitable to the listed minimum requirements.
The first such advancement was the movement of the memory controller from the northbridge to the CPU die. This minimized the cost of memory I/O ops and significantly decreased latency. The second is the integration of the IGP/APU onto the CPU die. Because the GPU and the CPU both have direct access to the memory controller we do only have to worry about the bandwidth of the memory bus.
DDR3 memory has a bandwidth of 800–2133 MT/s with an I/O clock range of 400–1066 MHz. It goes higher than that (The HD4000 system typically support DDR3-1333/1600), but lets just use 1066 as that's common for cheap off the shelf ram. With 2133 MT/s DDR3 yeilds 17,066 MB/s peak data rate. Lets look at the ATI X800 by comparison. It uses GDDR3 ram and a 980 MHz I/O clock. This yields 1900MT/s and a peak throughput of 15,200 MB/s. Now, these numbers are assuming a single standard 'stick' of DDR3 and GDDR3 respectfully. The theoretical throughput of the memory system scales with the number of sticks. The real limiting factor we need to look at is the databuss bandwith. The ATI X800 was available as an AGP 4/8 card, which has a peak data-rate of 2,133 MB/s and a PCI-e 1.0 sixteen lane version, which has a peak data rate of 4,000 MB/s (250MB per lane). This means the effective bandwidth of this card is, at best, less than one fourth the bandwidth of the memory bus of a modern Intel system.
And that's with one stick of really mediocre ram.
If you doubt these figures, I direct you to benchmarks: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Performance-and-Scaling-Overview-of-Intel-HD-Graphics-4000.82847.0.html
You only focused on one of the three points i brought up, and the only one that was a "guide".
The others still stand for good reason.
Performance is NOT the only factor in why integrated chips are not supported. Given your knowledge of computer hardware i'm surprised you're even arguing that point.
Yes the future is looking bright for newer integrated chips, and they are beginning to be able to play FPS at somewhat playable frame rates..
But most people that want to run with just integrated graphics are running some 7 year old dell laptop that doesn't even have the correct shader model version, let alone enough memory to properly support the streaming textures. This isn't even going into the performance that this 7 year old integrated chip would be able to provide... if any..
So if it runs on new spiffy integrated chips... cool... really happy thats capable! More players to NS2!
But the majority of people are not knowledgeable about this topic enough and the important distinctions, and thus would be very very unhappy with their purchase ("I dont understand! It ran The Sims just fine?!" etc)
If intelHD 4000 is running the game in an acceptable manner, the store page should be changed to reflect it
What other points? That Intel isn't AMD or nvidia? That there is some sort of fundamental difference between integrated cards and chips? I really didn't want to have to do a full lecture on why APIs are hardware agnostic, but sure, whatever, lets do this.
An API, or Application Programing Interface is an agreed upon set of protocols for calling upon certain resources from an Application. There are two major 3D graphics APIs, OpenGL and D3D. The common factor between these APIs is that they provide a method for applications to draw 3D graphics regardless of vender. The APIs do not care how the operation is done in the background just so long as it conforms to the agreed upon communication protocols. Typically the interface for 3D graphics hardware is handled by a graphics driver. Artifacts from poor code can cause the OpenGL or D3D interfaces in the driver to be buggy, this is the source of many woes and hacky fixes for specific venders.
Mesa is what we call a reference implementation of OpenGL. This means that an exhaustive amount of effort has gone into making it 1:1 with the OpenGL version it supports and no tricks or other such code that would be used to optimize specific routines have been implemented in software. The Intel GPU hardware acceleration code takes the portions of Mesa that a specific Intel GPU supports and runs it on hardware rather than software. This means, especially on older chips without hardware T&L, that a portion of Mesa was run as a software implementation. This has not been the case at least sense 2006 (when I started poking around at it) and probably before, but I don't feel like looking up which generation gave hardware T&L.
I'll note that this is how pretty much _every_ open source driver operated until the release of Gallium3D, which has its own set of advantages in terms of maintaining driver code and writing new driver code, but is currently behind Mesa in terms of OpenGL API level and it's really not pertinent in general.
Applications do not know what hardware they are addressing. They make calls to the operating system which then allocates system resources and passes off instructions. To a given program, there is no difference between an Integrated chip and a card unless they specifically poll for it (for optimization profiles or driver bug work arounds, for instance).
I do not know how steeped you are with the Linux userbase, so I'll just flat out tell you that Intel puts out the most compliant drivers we have. They are rock solid little pieces of code even if you are running a git snapshot. From a pure "Will this driver fuck up my 3D API call" metric, there are none better.
I'm surprised you find it surprising. I'm making very clear arguments and precise points about an objectively measurable and independently verifiable technology advancement. I understand that people often default to the common knowledge when an issue crops up, but in this case the common knowledge is very, very wrong. This would be an entirely different mater if, for instance, the game tried to run using the 3.1 core profile and then ran into driver issues on the way, but it's not the case. It polls the supported OpenGL version and quits, so right now your assessments of the possible performance of the HD 4000 are purely speculative and based on what looks like simple bias.
Beyond that, you don't seem to acknowledge the fact that is should even run on the hardware in question. To me this demonstrates a marked misunderstanding of the fundamentals of hardware abstraction provided by the operating system and APIs.
Yes, because a seven year old IGPU chip isn't up to the performance spec of the minimum requirements, however, you have been directing your criticisms at people who in fact do have hardware that meets the minimum performance spec based solely on the fact that their GPU is integrated rather then on a separate card. This is essentially technology voodoo. Your conclusions do not show an understanding of the issues at hand, they seem to be simply based on a collective gamer folk lore of appropriate kinds of hardware for 'serious games'.
This is not to lambaste you personally, but to point out that these people you are dismissing have very valid reasons to expect this game to run on their hardware. There are also very valid reasons for beta class software not to run quite yet. There are valid arguments and a wide variety of appropriate and helpful responses. Dismissal is not one of them.
Linux users are not a majority of people. We are overwhelmingly technically inclined compared to any other operating install base with the possible exception of AIX users.
There should be Linux specifications in general on the store page, not just windows only. DirectX 9 level hardware has no meaning to Linux users, and even if it did, the cards that this would include still will not run the game under Linux because most of them still use Mesa or Gallium3D for their backend.
The fact we are having this conversation is proof that they are ambiguous as is.
You are arguing and explaining tangents unnecessarily.
"what other points? "
Dedicated vram based on hardware model.
And that "video card " specifically denotes a non motherboard soldered solution, and implies use of a PCI express slot.. Like it has for the past ~18 years.
"because a seven year old IGPU chip isn't up to the performance spec of the minimum requirements, however, you have been directing your criticisms at people who in fact do have hardware that meets the minimum performance spec"
Go ahead and point me or anyone to the comprehensive list of integrated graphic chips from the past decade that can be used as a guide to assess minium requirements for modern fps games by your typical windows end user. Then include an industry standard easy method to determine a user's chip model so dxdiag doesn't just print out "Intel graphics" for every end user (this includes shader models, vram requirements, drivers etc)
Until then, the only exception to the rule is the very newest hardware like this HD 4000 and very competent Linux users. (who don't need to be told what is and isn't supported anyways)
Minimum requirements are stated as such to guarantee a certain level of enjoyable experience for the average user through an easy to measure /compare method.
Imo its already woefully too low.. Can only imagine how few integrated solutions pass this bar.. Let alone what any actual gamer would provide as a bar = 60 fps.
I get your frustration. But it doesn't change the minimum requirements, which you keep attempting to interpret.
I've already explained why this is an inaccurate assumption.
You are arguing semantics to a technical issue.
A) We aren't discussing windows.
You don't understand the issues at hand and yet continue to insist to comment on them. Lets go through them again.
A) This issue is not exclusive to the Intel HD 4000.
C) NS 2 already runs on the Intel HD 4000 windows side.
C.2) It even runs on the significantly lower spec Intel HD 3000
D) there are no linux requirements posted
E) This is the third thread that I've seen since I joined that is affected by the root issue, and you are arguing about the words in an arbitrary guideline.
You are a community leader. You are arguing semantics over a valid technical issue with the game. This is getting tiring so I'll just put it straight out there:
You obviously don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Linux. You have done nothing but spout your opinion about hardware capabilities, which is entirely based on hearsay. This is not how you should be handling technical support requests and it reflects poorly on the community.
I've taken the time to sit down and explain to you why your assumptions are faulty. I have provided both non-scientific benchmarks and proof positive of capability as well as hard maths. You are refusing to acknowledge that the root cause is an issue and continue to argue that the fact that it also affects integrated hardware somehow absolves it of being a fault.
I do not know what universe you are posting from, but in mine we call a spade a spade.
I am not arguing semantics to a technical issue because this is not a technical issue argument. Stop trying to make it one.
I haven't even argued at all what the HD4000 is capable of, i've even gone so far as make it an exception when discussing integrated - why are you going off about it?!
This discussion (not the thread, my reply to you) wasn't even about Linux specifically - why are you going off about it?!
Allow me to remind you of your claim:
Does the store page say integrated graphics are supported?
Does it say "Any 3D graphics accelerator less than 5 years old"?
No. It doesnt.
That's because its not officially supported!
Just like how Opengl and DX11 are still in BETA and a work in progress, and therefore so is Linux - this is why it is not reflected in the store page, just like integrated graphics.
So does DX11, Opengl, and Linux run NS2? Yes, just like some integrated graphics.
Are they officially supported, a finished product, and therefore reflected in the store page? No.
So excuse me if my originating comment was a bit brash - but i am very surprised that people make assumptions like and then are surprised when things don't work out.
As far as the semantic arguments, we can go around and around all day.. but really the links you provide do enough arguing for me.
Low resolutions, horrendous framerates, and being compared to geforce 610m? lol.. The comments reflect my sentiments on the matter... i'd never recommend anyone attempt to
This is all i have to say on the matter, so have a good one, and i really hope the Mesa issues get resolved soon
I'm sorry, i failed to notice that we entered some sort of twilight zone where software issues were caused by the subjective nature of the English language. Allow me to adjust my perceptive to this brave new world.
Because this is at its core a Linux issue. Windows doesn't have MESA or Gallium3D. The game works on the windows platform using the same hardware. Are you missing the context here?
Does it not? Do you believe that integrated cards are apparently so different to the software despite the large lecture in how APIs and in fact all software running on a modern operating system that isn't a device driver could give two flips about the underlying hardware?
Oh, I see you do, thanks for clearing that up.
Yes, it's beta software. I've acknowledged that, and even suggested it as an appropriate response to issues that crop up when you haven't the foggiest idea how to actually be helpful rather than being pedantic about the word 'card', which quite literally sums up the entirety of your contribution to this technical support thread.
Thanks! I now know that the word card is used in the marketing of this game. It has been so helpful and really lets me know that the staff is actively working on resolving the issues I've been having. yet another great triumph for the NS2 forum community.
I absolutely will not. You have taken on the responsibility to represent this forum's community and act as a moderator. Your actions will be held as representative to the community as a whole, and right now, they do not bode well.
(for those confused, this is not sarcasm)
Selective quoting will get you nowhere fast.
So what you are saying is that it doesn't live up to your standards? Personally, i'm pretty okay with a 35 average FPS at low resolution and would in fact find it much preferable over ten frames of black screen and an error prompt. But I suppose I'm just pragmatic that way.
Welcome to nowhere, you sure got here fast.