Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:34 pm
indeed! cheers to master1234567!:lol:hybrid wrote:Wonderful. The glory vsync pitfall. Benchmark succeeded
Official forum of the Irrlicht Engine
https://irrlicht.sourceforge.io/forum/
indeed! cheers to master1234567!:lol:hybrid wrote:Wonderful. The glory vsync pitfall. Benchmark succeeded
You are not reading my posts at all. I never claimed that comparing Irrlicht demo results with an Ogre demo was a benchmark. To me it was a good hint. The only benchmark that i considered acurate is comparing the Ogre demo results with the two renderers and thats an acurate benchmark that Ogre opengl is too slow.hybrid wrote:After all, your way of 'benchmarking' is childish if any. So lets hope you're still that young that you can learn about.
Im doing benchmarks to my own systems for about 8 years and i use hardware forums often to compare results obtained from other people with similar computer system. I even buy my hardware based on what other people in hardware forums buy to get more reliable comparisions in my tests with the most common systems.hybrid wrote:Real benchmarking requires experience and professional techniques.
Which wasn't what i wrote at all but it isn't a suprise that you have misunderstand what i wrote by now. What i said is to know if your system is well tuned or not. My test is valid for my computer only of course but my system is a normal system with a Pentium 4, 2G of ddr ram, a normal asus motherboard and a Radeon 9600pro so i think there is no excuse. If you acept that my system is fine-tuned and that there are no differences in driver performance between DX and OGL then you have to acept that the problem must be the OpenGL renderer because it is the only thing that changes.The notion, that one individual system suffices for reliable benchmarking data is laughable and shows indeed, that you are the one who has no clue on benchmarking.
Perhaps not noobs but if you don't put some effort in the quality of your OpenGL driver then it's better not to do it at all. It only gives a bad image to OpenGL which it doesn't deserve. It's even more serious when some Ogre developers claim that OpenGL is slower than DirectX which in this case the guy who said this is certainly a noob.And don't for a minute believe the Ogre-Team to be noobs with OpenGL.
I accept the first part, not the latter. I only said, that *if* drivers were of equal quality for both APIs. I did not say and in fact don't believe that drivers for both APIs are of equal quality. Not at all.elander wrote:If you acept that my system is fine-tuned and that there are no differences in driver performance between DX and OGL then you have to acept that the problem must be the OpenGL renderer because it is the only thing that changes.
They really put much effort into it. Sinbad, the creator of Ogre, likes OpenGL more than DirectX anyway, so why would he not care about the OpenGL implementation? See his blog, if you want to see, whether he puts any thought on the OpenGL way...elander wrote:Perhaps not noobs but if you don't put some effort in the quality of your OpenGL driver then it's better not to do it at all. It only gives a bad image to OpenGL which it doesn't deserve. It's even more serious when some Ogre developers claim that OpenGL is slower than DirectX which in this case the guy who said this is certainly a noob.And don't for a minute believe the Ogre-Team to be noobs with OpenGL.