Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

OpenGL vs D3D

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • OpenGL
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 1, 2002 4:22:00 PM

Hmm... Again, I wonder. I have asked a person who is quite into 3D this question once, but he had no real preference (maybe because he is writing an MMX-optimized software 3d-engine on his own, optimizing the machine code manually). So why don't I ask in here?
It's the thread about the person with performance problems with UT that mentioned the difference between OpenGL and Direct3D. And that is what looks interesting to me. So, my question: What do you prefer: OpenGL or Direct3D, and most of all why?
Personally I prefer OpenGL. Why, I don't really know, but it seems more professional to me. D3D seems this ... for gaming only. And indeed, I used to play Unreal in far, far gone times when there were no exams, and my personal opinion is that OpenGL looked better that D3D. Does anybody share this opinion?

And now that I think of it, does turning Vsync on improve visual quality of a game? Because with modern systems it seems quite a bit of overkill running Quake at 230 fps ... So why not trying to get the most quality out of your system instead of the biggest quantity ...

Greetz,
Bikeman

More about : opengl d3d

February 1, 2002 5:24:59 PM

I think OpenGL (as used in Quake3) has very good 3D quality, better then that of some Direct3D games. But I don't have recent Direct3D games so I can't say how the quality of the newer games is, but in my opinion Quake3 looks better then Unreal.

My case has so many fans that it hovers above the ground :eek:  .
a b U Graphics card
February 1, 2002 9:33:51 PM

At the highest level, OpenGL is for accuracy while D3D is for speed. But since games try to balance accuracy and speed, it's hard to say unless you try both! Be aware that gaming cards are targeted toward D3D performance.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
February 1, 2002 11:06:06 PM

Ay, but when u have a pro card, u crank up the OpenGL! I find that there's less need for AA with it, and things just look better (not to mention the sick FPS I get in CS!)

Only if you let me see the Umpa Lumpa- Homer Simpson.
February 1, 2002 11:48:16 PM

i say if you got a powerfal vid card then use opengl
but if you got a crappy mx200 go with direct3d

i got a gigabyte geforce2 gts 32mb ddr (i love the hsf)
and when i first got it i liked opengl coz it looked better in most games
but now coz my card is getting into the slower end of cards i have to use direct3d for speed
and you need speed in online games.

but hey some games look loverly and just got to take a screen shot or 2 in opengl and post it in the forums for poeple to admiyer :wink: :smile:
(note my award winning spelling again) :smile:

im a boring old fart and a crazy loon.
im also a mad alcoholic git but do that matter! :smile:
February 2, 2002 2:38:54 PM

Okay, so everybody seems to agree on the visual quality of OpenGL, but what about the new DX8.x-features? Does OpenGL support the pixel-shader stuff and so? I have also heard that there would be an OpenGL 2.0 on the way, to succeed the current 1.2-version. Does anybody now something about that?
And apparently nobody has a clue about my Vsync-question ...
Anyway, thanx for the replies!

Bikeman
February 2, 2002 5:20:05 PM

Vsync just locks the FPS to no higher than your card's current refresh rate. So if I have mine set to 75HZ running 800x600x32 in <insert game> then 75FPS is as high as it goes. Even in Win2K when I run games at 100+ FPS I see this anomally where the screen looks like it's getting torn as I run around. I guess vsync helps that? Don't really know, though.

Intel is god, cleanroom is life, and the wafers are all that matter.
February 2, 2002 11:36:00 PM

shloader is tight about vsync. Basically what it does is renders one game-frame, then waits for the the screen-frame to be complete before starting on the next game-frame. If it is disabled, then it doesn't wait, and while one screen-frame is being placed on the screen several actual game-frames are rendered. Sometimes the anomoly can be pretty visible i.e. the top part of the screen is from one frame and the next parts are from the subsequent frames etc. This is called tearing.

Now technically it is possible to improve visual quality when there are spare cpu cycles, for example when the game is waiting for the refresh frame to be completed or for the folks who just have ultra powerful computers. But, this would need some sort of engine scalability, not everyone implements things like that, it can bring about complications. Hardly any games these days have scalable engines.

OpenGL supports all of these features using extensions. But it is upto the graphics card manufacturers to implement these extensions and the application developers to make use of them. It can get tedious, but in the past nVidia has always implemented them and most of the developers (atleast the game developers) were happy to use them.

<font color=red><i>I refugee from Guatanamo Bay,
dance around the border like I'm Cassius Clay
</i></font color=red>
!