PDA

View Full Version : UT2004 faster with OpenGL ?


Graphicmaniac
12-09-04, 02:41 PM
From an article that talk about gaming with Linux and Windows, and that can be find in the thread i have opened in the Linux section ( http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=492257#post492257 )

i have seen an interesting thing: it seems that UT2004 will run faster (with AA and AF) if the game is made run with OpenGL instead of Direct3D and by much!


Then i was thinking: looking the banchmarks online they show that UT2004 run a bit faster on X800XT-pe than with 6800U but if this last one could be banchmarked with OpenGL than i think 6800U could result being the faster card for UT2004.

About Ati card it seem that OpenGL is slower than D3d

anyway the graphs are these:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hwupgrade.it%2Fartico li%2F1131%2F6.html&langpair=it%7Cen&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

italians go here:
http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/1131/6.html

jolle
12-09-04, 02:54 PM
you mean its faster in OpenGL in windows?
the benchmarks on that Italian site shows D3d to be faster.
you mentioned Linux, which doesnt have D3d, where it OpenGL would be a more obvious choice..

dont really know tho, remember the OGL renderer for the original UT to be a bit shoddy since they prioritize D3d..
Doesnt seem to have changed much, but OGL seems to often keep up pretty well with D3d on the 6800U.

The 6800U is alot faster then R420 in Linux, which would be Nvidias driver for Linux being alot better then ATis..
Heard alot of people saying Nvidia is the only way to go for Linux, as ATis driver support isnt as good, It is getting better, but Nvidia has a pretty good headstart on Linux drivers from what Ive heard..

Graphicmaniac
12-09-04, 02:58 PM
no if you look, UT2004 with Nvidia using openGL in in windows is faster than direct 3d look better


at 1600*1200 aa4x & af8x is even 20% faster! and has the same speed of X800XT-pe that uses d3d

jolle
12-09-04, 03:06 PM
lol dunno what I was thinking, i see it now..
my head is dough after doing a HTML "test" for a class im taking, writing the damn stuff with pen and paper is a damn stupid idea someone should be beaten up for..

How does the Image compare between OGL and Direct3d in UT2k4?
Didnt find any Images there, you tried it?
Might be doing less work in OGL is what I was thinking, simpler shaders and that sort perhaps..
Dunno, havent played alot of UT2k4, only the demo on my old 9700pro when i had it..
never tried OGL..

Looks like they have spent some time on the OGL renderer anyhow, unless it has alot of render errors, bugs and artifacts ofcource..

Graphicmaniac
12-09-04, 03:11 PM
i don't know about IQ but the article reports no error or bad IQ so maybe it is the same .. i hope eheh

jolle
12-09-04, 03:26 PM
its good if the OGL renderer looks just as good while being faster.
I just find it strange, as in the old days it was there for compatibility with cards not supporting D3D, and D3d in those days wasnt very good either compared to today.. and it was still "as it was" and not really supported, and somewhat buggy..

So its odd to me that they would put that much work on a OGL renderer next to a D3D renderer which is the "main" renderer...
Well unless its a resault of the work done on the Linux Version, which I assume is using OGL? since it lacks D3d..

saturnotaku
12-09-04, 03:26 PM
dont really know tho, remember the OGL renderer for the original UT to be a bit shoddy since they prioritize D3d..


The original UT engine was built around software rendering and Glide, not Direct3D or OpenGL. End users have pretty much perfected OGL for that game, though Lord knows they've had plenty of time to do it.

The OGL renderer for UT2004, if it was anything like 2003, has some inherent problems. I know there were issues with texture filtering if AF was enabled and also shadows were not rendered properly. It's generally not worth using.

Lfctony
12-09-04, 04:09 PM
Sat, you mean the original Unreal Engine (IE the game Unreal), right? Because IIRC, UT supported both Direct3D and OpenGL.

Hehe, I remember running the original game on my PowerVR video card, on a P100 o/c to 120! :)

fivefeet8
12-09-04, 04:39 PM
The OGL renderer for UT2004, if it was anything like 2003, has some inherent problems. I know there were issues with texture filtering if AF was enabled and also shadows were not rendered properly. It's generally not worth using.

Yeah. THe ogl renderer still has problems with shadows and a few vehicle lighting bugs in 2k4.

saturnotaku
12-09-04, 05:16 PM
Sat, you mean the original Unreal Engine (IE the game Unreal), right? Because IIRC, UT supported both Direct3D and OpenGL.



OpenGL was never "officially" supported in Unreal or UT. I have Unreal Gold and a third-party OGL renderer for it (works great, btw). I also use a third-party renderer for UT.

The only official options for both games were Glide, D3D and software.

siorai
12-09-04, 05:31 PM
There's quite a difference in the effects that get rendered between OpenGL and D3D so it's really no surprise that OpenGL runs faster. Render less = run faster.

And yes, Nvidia kills ATI in Linux. Well actually I guess it's more like ATI kills ATI in LInux because they flat out don't seem to give a crap about supporting Linux properly.

mongoose
12-09-04, 11:24 PM
to elaborate on your point regarding OGL in UT2003&04, if you run Antalus in both modes, you won't see the moss in the pool using opengl.