Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

Dev.SN ♥ developers

Raspberry Pi's $10K Bounty for Graphics Port

posted by girlwhowaspluggedout on Tuesday March 04 2014, @01:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the the-only-way-to-win-is-play dept.

FrogBlast writes:

"Last week, Broadcom released the full source of the OpenGL ES 1.1 and 2.0 driver stack for the Broadcom VideoCore IV 3D graphics core, which they provide under a 3-clause BSD license. The VideoCore IV core is used in many of Broadcom's processors, including the BCM2835 chip, which is used in the Raspberry Pi.

But because the release targets the BCM21553 3G cellphone chip, the Raspberry Pi Foundation has announced a bounty of $10,000 to the first person to port it to the BCM2835 chip and successfully run Quake III 'at a resolution of 1920-1080 and a minimum of 20fps, without making use of the capabilities of the blob'. The port, it says, 'should be reasonably straightforward' to accomplish."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Raspberry Pi's $10K Bounty for Graphics Port | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 1000 moderator points   | 18 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday March 04 2014, @01:21PM

    by ikanreed (3164) on Tuesday March 04 2014, @01:21PM (#10779)

    Do we get to see an incredibly unstable rushed-out-the-door-to-make-a-profit port that technically meets the requirements? Or is it sufficiently low a bounty that someone who would work on it anyways says to themselves "Might as well finish, it's a lot of money?"

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   3  

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hubie on Tuesday March 04 2014, @01:33PM

    by hubie (1068) on Tuesday March 04 2014, @01:33PM (#10795) Journal

    The rushed-out-the-door version would still have merit in that the startup effort has been done and one could patch what was there. Of course, if the foundation for the code was so shaky that it really warranted a complete re-write, then you're back to square one, but that would also be true of any version put forward.