DirectX expects the first pixel to be at the top while OpenGL expects it to be at the bottom. Poor poor people should never do any 3d work on those, or they should be prepared to pay even more money on already overpriced system (mac only, linux is free). Both have the same capability, only their green channel (RGB map) is inverted to each another.
3D COAT DX VS GL MAC OS
Multiply 2-10 with 100-1000x and you get a nice slowness in other unfortunate programs that dont have DirectX.Īnd to prolong this post even further- think about poor DirectXless platforms like Linux or Mac OS X. OGL is 2-10 slower than DirectX performing same tasks. Oh, and if anyone cares- quadros work faster with DX opposed to OpenGL too. In that tidbit you can also find the answer to the original question "dx or ogl"? Thank your preferred higher power for DX or you'd have to shell out 2k+ $ to get decent performance in Max too. Geforce drivers artificially slow the card down 100-1000x if they detect OpenGL based application that is NOT a game.ĭifference there is night and day, quadro with no artificial limitations is at least 100x faster. Actual difference between quadro and geforce cards, besides in price, is in software- or rather, in drivers. please notice how i used "max only" to describe the difference. Ignoring actual chips inside, and comparing price only- the most expensive geforce is worlds faster than the cheapest quadro, while the actual price difference is minimal (for Max). Simple fact is that quadro cards have outdated drivers, combined with reduced clocked speeds on the shaders, produce lower results (in Max) every time. Opposite to common belief (and sense - considering price) in most cases quadro flat out work slower than geforce counterparts. In fact, quadro card will be slower, even if the difference would be academic (Max only)īut do the quadros IN FACT perform night and day better?
Would the Quadro fx 3800 WITH the performance drivers really be significantly faster than a geforce GTX 260 in directx9 mode?
0 kommentar(er)
