Re: [Mesa-dev] OPENGL/MESA
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, mitch wrote: I think that the good parts of Opengl should be merged to the bad parts of mesa. Also, is there anyway to squeeze some more speed out of mesa? It seems that mesa is a good 8 to 10 FPS slower than Opengl with most apps and is much slower for low resolutions. pet hate That's a meaningless statement. If your application is running at 200fps and it gets 8 to 10 fps slower, then it'll take 4 to 5% longer to render a frame (big deal!). If your application is running at 11Hz and it gets an 8 to 10 fps slowdown then it'll take between 3 and 10 times longer to render a frame. (YIKES!!!) A *relative* FPS reading really doesn't tell us much. Also, unless you say *which* other OpenGL and on which platform, (and for which specific resolutions) there is zero information content. /pet hate Georgia Institute of Technology, Physics Computer Science major Yikes! I'd have hoped for a more scientific report! Steve Baker(817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail) Raytheon Systems Inc. (817)619-2466 (Fax) Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hti.com Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1 ___ Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] OPENGL/MESA
Stephen J Baker wrote: Also, unless you say *which* other OpenGL and on which platform, (and for which specific resolutions) there is zero information content. dont forget the compiler issue.. gcc and friends are made for portability visual c/c++ 5.0 is only made for wintel and it spills out very optimized assembler code.. its ~15% faster.. maybe ? someone can test this ? is it testable ? :) -- ralf willenbacher ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] OPENGL/MESA
Hi everybody, has anybody of you build Mesa with Visual C for glide ? And compared this with 3dfx' OpenGL driver ? - Holger On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, ralf willenbacher wrote: Stephen J Baker wrote: Also, unless you say *which* other OpenGL and on which platform, (and for which specific resolutions) there is zero information content. dont forget the compiler issue.. gcc and friends are made for portability visual c/c++ 5.0 is only made for wintel and it spills out very optimized assembler code.. its ~15% faster.. maybe ? someone can test this ? is it testable ? :) -- ralf willenbacher ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev ___ Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] OPENGL/MESA
Holger Waechtler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Hi everybody, has anybody of you build Mesa with Visual C for glide ? And compared this with 3dfx' OpenGL driver ? Mesa 3.1 / 3.2 for 3dfx / Windows support? Yes. My results with a recent 3.2 build are: 1) Mesa 3.2 is generally a little slower than 3dfx's own drivers, at least for my game and for Quake 3. The actual slowdown varies from around 2% (on a Banshee in a Pentium II, Windows 98) to 20% or so (on a Voodoo 2 in a Pentium II, Windows 95). 2) The visual quality of Mesa, at least for my game, is notably superior. For example, I see tears in distant geometry with 3dfx's current driver, but not with Mesa (I use the full OpenGL geometry pipeline). I also have a problem (almost certainly a bug, in fact:-)) with bilinear interpolation of alpha texels and alpha testing with 3dfx's drivers which doesn't occur with Mesa. 3) Both sets of drivers have crash bugs with my application, but different ones. The 3dfx "standalone" driver (3dfxvgl.dll, for Voodoo 1, 2 and Rush only) crashes for me whenever I use it on a Pentium III. Quake 3 doesn't crash in the same situation, incidentally. Mesa 3.1 and 3.2 appear to crash very early on any Voodoo 1 or Rush card, no matter what the processor or the Windows version, both with my game and with standard demos. I'm currently attempting to track down the crash bug I'm seeing with Mesa on Voodoo 1 and Rush hardware under Windows. Unfortunately, the best way to do this is apparently to run with a Glide version which has debugging enabled, and the Glide source code release (due to various licensing issues) doesn't actually contain the code necessary to build Glide for Windows. I'm currently attempting to persuade 3dfx to give me a prebuilt binary of Glide 2.x for the Voodoo 1 on Windows with debugging enabled, should they find one in an archive somewhere:-) I'll report back to the dev list if I actually manage to get any more information on the Mesa crashes. Neal Tringham (VX) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] OPENGL/MESA
mitch writes: I think that the good parts of Opengl should be merged to the bad parts of mesa. Also, is there anyway to squeeze some more speed out of mesa? It seems that mesa is a good 8 to 10 FPS slower than Opengl with most apps and is much slower for low resolutions. Exactly which implementations are you comparing here? Mesa-3.1 vs. MS's OpenGL that comes with Windows? Or with SGI's sample implementation? On what platform? Dave - Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Konerding WWW: http://picasso.ucsf.edu/~dek - ___ Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] OPENGL/MESA
I guess my comparision isn't 100% valid but it is a bit. I'm comparing quake3 in linux with mesa 3.3, and 3.2 with that of quake3 in windows with opengl. There is the issue that I'm not using SSE in linux but this was still the case when I was on my P2. The decrease in FPS could not be mesa but it's the most likely case. I'm not a gaming cowboy either so I don't really care about "My FPS" but it's good for testing mesa. Games have always pushed the standards. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mitch writes: I think that the good parts of Opengl should be merged to the bad parts of mesa. Also, is there anyway to squeeze some more speed out of mesa? It seems that mesa is a good 8 to 10 FPS slower than Opengl with most apps and is much slower for low resolutions. Exactly which implementations are you comparing here? Mesa-3.1 vs. MS's OpenGL that comes with Windows? Or with SGI's sample implementation? On what platform? Dave - Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Konerding WWW: http://picasso.ucsf.edu/~dek - ___ Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev -- Mitch Allmond Georgia Institute of Technology, Physics Computer Science major [EMAIL PROTECTED] lca13.eastnet.gatech.edu "God does not play dice, but I do" ___ Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] OPENGL/MESA
The code that makes windows opengl fast isn't included in the SI released by SGI. Additionally, the driver you run on windows will have large amounts of effort expended by the IHV on tweaking for the particular hardware, in addition to the optimizations not included in the SI. mitch wrote: I guess my comparision isn't 100% valid but it is a bit. I'm comparing quake3 in linux with mesa 3.3, and 3.2 with that of quake3 in windows with opengl. There is the issue that I'm not using SSE in linux but this was still the case when I was on my P2. The decrease in FPS could not be mesa but it's the most likely case. I'm not a gaming cowboy either so I don't really care about "My FPS" but it's good for testing mesa. Games have always pushed the standards. ___ Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
