whats the diff?
- Thread starter Korgoth
- Start date
Faravid
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 351
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Re: Re: whats the diff?
Well yeah, 3D workstation would be using high performance and high cost 3D cards such as nVidia's Quadros.
Originally posted by dawdler
Depends on the definition of "Workstation". A 2D workstation or 3D workstation?
Well yeah, 3D workstation would be using high performance and high cost 3D cards such as nVidia's Quadros.
jonbob
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2003
- Messages
- 575
- Reaction score
- 0
For a start the Quadro/FireGL cards are much more expensive but they are supposed to be used by CAD professionals anyway. Last time I checked their aren't many 3D programs that use DirectX and most use OpenGL - where nVidia truly shine.
On that subject I wonder if Doom3 will do for nvidia what HL2 has/will do for ATI...?
On that subject I wonder if Doom3 will do for nvidia what HL2 has/will do for ATI...?
mrchimp
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
- Messages
- 1,928
- Reaction score
- 0
Most evidence I'v seen indicates ATi is faster for doom3 as well. Also some current OpenGL programs do run faster on ATi hardware which is rather odd because Nvidia have contributed alot to the OpenGL project.
Personally I like OpenGL more than DX, I'v tried programming in both and have got further with GL. From what I have read of the 1.5 GL specification it appears to support pixel shaders just like DX and will support alot of things DX9 doesn't in OpenGL 2.0, unfortunately we will haave to wait for the next gen of graphics cards to see them.
Personally I like OpenGL more than DX, I'v tried programming in both and have got further with GL. From what I have read of the 1.5 GL specification it appears to support pixel shaders just like DX and will support alot of things DX9 doesn't in OpenGL 2.0, unfortunately we will haave to wait for the next gen of graphics cards to see them.
dawdler
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2003
- Messages
- 2,980
- Reaction score
- 0
Dont forget running UT2k3 in OpenGL. ATI cards score like 150-170 fps, Nvidia around 40-50!
Even with poor/good/angelic drivers on either side, that should be an impossibility!
I disagree on OpenGL being better though. Well, maybe it was when we where sub DX8, but not now... Engines can be BLAZING in good old DX8.1 (Max Payne 2), but all modern OpenGL engine I have seen have rather poor performance. That's my general opinion at least.
Even with poor/good/angelic drivers on either side, that should be an impossibility!
I disagree on OpenGL being better though. Well, maybe it was when we where sub DX8, but not now... Engines can be BLAZING in good old DX8.1 (Max Payne 2), but all modern OpenGL engine I have seen have rather poor performance. That's my general opinion at least.
OCybrManO
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 4,780
- Reaction score
- 0
I love hearing people say "nVidia is better at OpenGL. Just look at Doom3."
Do you people listen to John Carmack when he says they had to heavily optimize Doom3 (combined with some shadow calculation shortcuts added in nVidia drivers/hardware) so that nVidia cards work as well as (or, in some cases, slightly better than) ATI cards?
Face it. With this crop of cards nVidia dropped the ball and everyone else is forced to do extra work to cover their collective ass... let's just hope their next line of products is a step in the right direction.
Do you people listen to John Carmack when he says they had to heavily optimize Doom3 (combined with some shadow calculation shortcuts added in nVidia drivers/hardware) so that nVidia cards work as well as (or, in some cases, slightly better than) ATI cards?
Face it. With this crop of cards nVidia dropped the ball and everyone else is forced to do extra work to cover their collective ass... let's just hope their next line of products is a step in the right direction.
iamironsam
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 987
- Reaction score
- 0
That's true. It's because OpenGL doesn't take advantage of hardware as well as DirectX. Though it might be possible to get the same sort of effects out of OpenGL, it's all done using software, which bogs down the CPU. DirectX is simply more efficient on existing hardware.
Doom 3 looks and plays impressively because it's being made by an incredibly talented group of programmers who have been able to pull of some incredible optimization miracles. Unfortunetly most game developers don't have the luxury of having such an amazing group of computer scientists, so they rely on pre-existing graphic programing langauges with very good hardware support like DirectX. They would rather work within the constraints of the hardware than re-write the book for every game.
![[Matt]](https://valvetime-data.community.forum/avatars/m/0/25.jpg?1330940173){kind=avatar}
[Matt]
Newbie
- Joined
- May 9, 2003
- Messages
- 3,062
- Reaction score
- 0
Nvidia cards ARE faster in doom 3 but not due to it bieng an openGL application... The reason it runs faster on nvidia FX cards is because it can render in 32-bit and 16-bit modes but carmack has chosen to run the doom 3 code only using the 16-bit render path. The ATI cards however can only do the rendering using 24-bit mode.
The FX cards also have a triangular volumetric shadow rendering system that they have labelled 'UltraShadow' which hugely speeds up the rendering of shadows in games that have been coded with this system in mind. The result is that the ATI Xt cards are some 10-15 frames per second slower than the FX5900u even at higher resolutions in doom 3 (source - hard ocp, anand and toms).
However... force the FX5900u to use the 32-bit render path and turn off the shadows in the engine and the XT obliterates FX...
The FX cards also have a triangular volumetric shadow rendering system that they have labelled 'UltraShadow' which hugely speeds up the rendering of shadows in games that have been coded with this system in mind. The result is that the ATI Xt cards are some 10-15 frames per second slower than the FX5900u even at higher resolutions in doom 3 (source - hard ocp, anand and toms).
However... force the FX5900u to use the 32-bit render path and turn off the shadows in the engine and the XT obliterates FX...
dawdler
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2003
- Messages
- 2,980
- Reaction score
- 0
Its actually worse, as it use all the way down to FX12
But no game (not even Doom III) needs FP24 or higher yet (well, HL2 HDR do, but the FX card cant do HDR anyway), so it doesnt really matter. In theory, the FX card is quite adapted to modern games, albeit with poor PS2.0 performance. Then again, we see it proven wrong too. In MP2, the ATI cards are much faster!!! Why? They shouldnt be. Its DX8.1, the "playground" of the FX card, and the version Nvidia recommends everyone to use instead of DX9!
At any rate: Its sliding very much offtopic
Arno
Newbie
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Messages
- 382
- Reaction score
- 0
IMO, right now there isn't a truly "modern" OpenGL engine out. All the current top OpenGL first person shooters are based on the dated Quake3 engine (Enemy Territory, Call of Duty and Q3A itself). The Quake3 engine is a fast engine and all three of those games perform good (especially Q3A :cheese: ), but they're not as good-looking as Max Payne 2. I think we'll have to wait till Doom3 to see the full visual qualities of OpenGL 1.4/2.0.
iamironsam
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 987
- Reaction score
- 0
Originally posted by Arno
IMO, right now there isn't a truly "modern" OpenGL engine out. All the current top OpenGL first person shooters are based on the dated Quake3 engine (Enemy Territory, Call of Duty and Q3A itself). The Quake3 engine is a fast engine and all three of those games perform good (especially Q3A :cheese: ), but they're not as good-looking as Max Payne 2. I think we'll have to wait till Doom3 to see the full visual qualities of OpenGL 1.4/2.0.
It's not just your opinion, it's fact. Carmack & Co. are the only ones with the talent and/or ambition to build an OpenGL engine from the ground up.
P.S. Did you know that Carmack is also currently working on a reusable passenger aircraft capable of flying into and out of space? He really is smart enough to be a rocket scientist.
dawdler
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2003
- Messages
- 2,980
- Reaction score
- 0
So... You dont count the KOTOR engine as modern? It requires OpenGL 1.4 compatability. Or what about the Silverback engine for Savage? Though I agree, that aint as fancy as the KOTOR engine. And the Homeworld 2 engine? Sure, its only 1.3, but it IS pretty fancy, dont you think?
All these games run rather sluggish.
All these games run rather sluggish.
Arno
Newbie
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Messages
- 382
- Reaction score
- 0
TBH, I don't know anything about all three of those engines. I mostly play first person shooters.
According to benchmarks a top-of-the-line graphics card can get 80 to 100 fps in Doom3. And there will be even newer cards when Doom3 is released. So I'm not too worried about the performance of OpenGL.
The developer has the most influence on the performance of a game anyway. Max Payne 2 runs great, but there are also Directx8/9 games out there with a rather poor performance.
