Hello Guest

some ATI / nVidia inconsistencies

  • 2 Replies
some ATI / nVidia inconsistencies
« on: June 17, 2011, 08:09:11 »

Testing my lastest 3D software (developped on nvidia cards ) on ATI hardware, i noticed two differences in rendering  behaviors.
It's just a couple of questions, nothing very urgent. I've found workarounds.

I tested several nVidia cards (from an old GT 8800 to a newer GTX 470), they all behave identically
I only have one ATI at my disposal (Radeon HD 4850) which is quite old...

Here the noticed inconsistencies :

1) In a shader (GLSL v1.5 to v3.3),  i needed to convert a mat4 to a mat3, keeping only the rotation part of the matrix.

on nVidia I did this :
      mat3 matrix3 = transpose(mat3( matrix4[0].xyz, matrix4[1].xyz, matrix4[2].xyz ));

ATI requires this :

      mat3 matrix3 = (mat3( matrix4[0].xyz, matrix4[1].xyz, matrix4[2].xyz ));

The result is then identical, but i'm pretty surprised of such different behaviors !

I eventually found a workaround to avoid mat4 -> mat3, so nothing realy important. Yet : does anyone has an explanation ?

2) second strange behavior, regarding FBOs

To initialize my FBOs (on nVidia) I use the GL11.GL_DEPTH_COMPONENT as depth format.

It creates a huge precision issue on ATI. Surfaces near from each other(but not extremly near !)  flickers... I thus need to switch to GL14.GL_DEPTH_COMPONENT24 (but only on ATI hardware)

Does GL11.GL_DEPTH_COMPONENT have different bits count ?

Anyone ever noticed that ?

Thanks !

« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 11:40:42 by Estraven »

Re: some ATI / nVidia inconsistencies
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2011, 09:25:07 »
replying to myself...

The first problem seems not to be a shader related problem, but more likely a GPU memory managment issue.

In fact, the mat4 comes from an uniform array of mat4 passed to the shader in a UBO.
Apparently, the matrix are extracted from this structure is transposed on nvidia, and not transposed on ATI.

I'll do some more test to figure what's going on.



The Layout of UBO needs to be manually specified. I added "layout(row_major)" to my UBO declaration, now the behavior is consistent between nVidia and ATI.

layout(row_major) uniform animation_ubo                {
      vec4 bones_absolute_positions[100] ;
         vec4 bones_rotated_positions[100] ;
       vec4 bones_conjugate_quaternions[100] ;
       mat4 bones_conjugate_composition_quaternions[100] ;

My guess is that, when unspecified, ATI uses Row_Major, whereas nVidia uses Column_Major....

For those interested, see : http://www.opengl.org/wiki/Uniform_Buffer_Object

Any clues on the Depth_Component ??
« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 10:14:59 by Estraven »


Offline spasi

  • *****
  • 2258
    • WebHotelier
Re: some ATI / nVidia inconsistencies
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2011, 11:36:33 »
Base on the 4.1 specification, implementations are required to support the following internal formats, that correspond to the base DEPTH_COMPONENT format:


I think the spec doesn't specify what format you should get if you only specify DEPTH_COMPONENT, so I guess you're seeing implementation-specific behavior. That is, you get DEPTH_COMPONENT24 on NV and DEPTH_COMPONENT16 on AMD by default. You can query the internal format after FBO creation to verify this.