[johnsonlam]

Hi,

My cousin have a Celeron 700 with GeForce 2MX. I tried to use D3D but surprisingly slow, then I tried OPENGL and find it perform better!

Do you got the same result? On my own PC Athlon 1.2G with Matrox G450 was D3D better.

Thanks!

 

[fivefeet8]

that isn't a suprise considering geforce card usually run better at ogl..... You could try different detonators......

 

[swordsaint]

naturally
OpenGl is really suppose to run faster in any PC

 

[johnsonlam]

For my own Matrox G450, the OPENGL even crashed and slow, I know 3D was not the cake of Matrox, but the quality and stability was really awful. :dead:

 

[bobotns]

My ATi rage 128 delivers better performance with OpenGL

 

[liquid]

The Matrox G450 is an awesome 2d card, but not a good choice if you want to play 3d games. Also, matrox's opengl ICD is pretty much non-existant. Best to stick with Direct 3D.

 

[Kazuya2001]

OGL is KNOWN to be faster than D3D. It always has been. But D3D looks better.

 

[Asz]

Well it kind of depends, on my old 333 celeron with 128ram and 32mb TNT2 D3D ran faster then OGL. Now with my current config (listed below) OGL runs games faster... It would also depend on the card you have

 

[RaNdOmTaSk]

Integrated anything takes away from your 1.2 processing power. disable it and get a creative live sound card. If you made it, I suggest not getting integrated chips. If you bought it, read carefully and look carefully. Integrated anything takes away from the mobos ram, and usually PCI cards/AGP cards have their own ram, which makes overall computer experience much much better.

 

[johnsonlam]

I'm using Sound Blaster Live! value, it works good except with a little compatibility problem with the VIA chipset (fixed anyway).

On the other hand, I'm very surprise to see the GeForce 2 MX running D3D was awfully slow (just play several games yesterday), especially the 2D games it runs like using 200MHz CPU!

Matrox G450 was excellent when I use PeteSoft GPU, the quality and speed was so good that I never start my PS again

 

[RaNdOmTaSk]

geforce 2 MX isn't exactly a hardcore gaming video graphics card. Its made for lower end computers like pii and pii 500's and that kind of market. Its made to give those kinda people decent playing fps, like 60 and 70

 

[Kazuya2001]

yeah but it's also one of the best cards out there for its price! I got one and for $200 (canadian) I've never been happier I hope nvidia comes out with an mx version for its geforce 3. no damn way am I crankin out 2 weeks worth of pay for that shiat!

 

['K']

for me OGL faster than D3D if i use detonator 12.xx because this driver activate "lod bias" for D3D as default setting (maybe this is the reason why some nvidia card have a blurring effect with Pete D3D and Soft plugins).

 

[Demigod]

Direct3D and OpenGL performance is very similar on my video card (TNT2) but I mainly use it for OpenGL programs and applications. I found nVidia's 16bit 3D graphics quality isn't very good. For games like UT I have to run it in 32bit color just to get acceptable graphics.

I personally think the GeForce 2 GTS/MX cards are badly designed. Those cards have so much processing potential, yet they're severely limited by the slow memory. The GeForce 2 MX cards only have SDR memory, which cuts down on the price, but also cuts about half the processing power away. The GeForce 2 GTS was the world's first gigatexel GPU, yet it was only as fast as a Voodoo 5 5500. The GeForce 2 Ultra's fast 466 Mhz memory gave 30%+ frame rates compared to the GTS. The GeForce 3 video cards are still too early to judge. They bring a whole new set of features and promises, but so did the previous GeForce cards (which actually never came to light).

 

[madrose]

For me, it seems that D3D runs faster. When I play Counterstrike, OpenGL gave me a better quality. When I shoot at the crate, I can actually see dust flying.

 

[Kazuya2001]

Depends on the game and your card. I agree, half-life runs better in OGL. Played half-life with a voodoo? Runs hella fast at any resolution!

 

[liquid]

I don't think it's correct to base API comparisons using PC games.
many of these PC games are highly optimized usually for one renderer. For instance Quake based games run better with OpenGL, where as Unreal based games run better under D3D.

ePSXe is a great emulator, but it wasn't designed to take advantage of any specific renderer.
For instance Segu's D3D render is much faster than pete's OGL plugin. yet, pete's OGL plugin is faster than his D3D plugin. so It just comes down to software design and implementation.

But If I were to make a comparison between pete's plugins, on my new setup, I would say his OpenGl is faster and looks a little better than his D3D plugin. So that's the one I use.

ironically, D3D was faster on my old computer which had a TNT, I guess you can't win 'em all.

 

[cairey]

Also Quake is programmed in the C, which is good for OpenGL. Many people don't use OpenGL, because some find it hard to optimise for. Some OpenGL games run slow and some fast. OpenGL can be very fast if the developer uses it well.

Well, that's my opinion anyway.

 

[Frag]

Indeed, opengl seem a lot faster in almost any hardware combinations ( excluding Matrox cards ).

Someone claimed d3d looks better. How come?

Anything that can be done in d3d can be done in opengl as well...

 

[GEO]

i think this no longer belongs to the epsxe forum....
BTW OGL is the best choice for me also