1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Why You Should Use OpenGL Instead Of DirectX

Discussion in 'Games' started by Wrigleyvillain, Jan 8, 2010.

  1. Wrigleyvillain

    Wrigleyvillain PTFO or GTFO

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,667 (3.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,773
    Location:
    Chicago
    Source

    This blog editorial makes some valid and interesting points though as a PC gamer I'm not sure I fully agree. Discuss.
     
    DirectorC says thanks.
  2. DirectorC

    DirectorC New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,624 (0.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    268
    Location:
    Florizy
    I agree with the article. It blows chunks having MS control any aspect of the gaming community. And the fact that Linux gaming never took off because of this. But gamers actually love it WTF.
     
  3. BraveSoul

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    987 (0.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    164
    but does openGL has has the eye candy of directX ?
     
  4. DirectorC

    DirectorC New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,624 (0.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    268
    Location:
    Florizy
    It's common knowledge that OpenGL has faster draw calls than DirectX (see NVIDIA presentations like this one if you don't want to take my word for it), and it has first access to new GPU features via vendor extensions. OpenGL gives you direct access to all new graphics features on all platforms, while DirectX only provides occasional snapshots of them on their newest versions of Windows. The tesselation technology that Microsoft is heavily promoting for DirectX 11 has been an OpenGL extension for three years. It has even been possible for years before that, using fast instancing and vertex-texture-fetch. I don't know what new technologies will be exposed in the next couple years, I know they will be available first in OpenGL.

    Microsoft has worked hard on DirectX 10 and 11, and they're now about as fast as OpenGL, and support almost as many features. However, there's one big problem: they don't work on Windows XP! Half of PC gamers still use XP, so using DirectX 10 or 11 is not really a viable option. If you really care about having the best possible graphics, and delivering them to as many gamers as possible, there's no choice but OpenGL.
     
  5. Wrigleyvillain

    Wrigleyvillain PTFO or GTFO

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,667 (3.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,773
    Location:
    Chicago
    Well that's certainly true. Even if they didn't manage to half-ass and screw it up while paying lip service to the contrary a la GFWL.
     
  6. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    13,571 (6.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,506
    Location:
    IA, USA
    I don't buy this. Even games like Spore and The Sims 3 that were also released for Mac run on DirectX on Windows and OpenGL on Mac. If DirectX truly didn't offer advantages, they would create it strictly for OpenGL and not bother at all with DirectX.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  7. 3870x2

    3870x2

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,875 (2.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    689
    Location:
    Joplin, Mo
    +1
    My only guess on this is that OpenGL has a much reduced framerate on video cards, and is harder to program for. Mind you that is a guess, but an educated one, seeing as early versions of direct X were much faster than OpenGL years ago.

    On games that would support both (and emulation for that matter) OpenGL was laggy, while Direct X ran absolutely smooth, at the same settings.

    Also, OpenGL might have had support for tessellation-like possibilites, but it hasnt been used because without a good algorithm for computing tessellation, it would be so unplayable 2x5970s couldnt run it at over a frame per second. This is why it hasnt been used in OpenGL.
     
  8. DirectorC

    DirectorC New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,624 (0.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    268
    Location:
    Florizy
    The stuff you just said is all covered and contradicted in the article. First they explain why DirectX became more popular, which disagrees with your statements. And they also state in the article that OpenGL has always been faster and DirectX has only recently caught up.

    For some reason I believe the writer of the article over you...

    Can OpenGL recover?

    Back in 1997, the situation was similar to how it is now. Microsoft was running a massive marketing campaign for Direct3D, and soon everyone "just knew" that it was faster and better than OpenGL. This started to change when Chris Hecker published his open letter denouncing DirectX. Soon after that, John Carmack posted his famous OpenGL rant, and put his money where his mouth was by implementing all of Id Software's games in OpenGL, proving once and for all that DirectX was unnecessary for high-end 3D gaming.

    This lesson appears to have been forgotten over the last few years. Most game developers have fallen under the spell of DirectX marketing, or into the whirlpool of vicious cycles and network advantages. It's time to throw off the veil of advertisements and buzzwords, and see what's really happening. If you use DirectX, you have to choose between using the weak, bloated DirectX 9 or sacrificing most of your user-base to use DirectX 10 or 11.

    On the other hand, if you use OpenGL, you get faster and more powerful graphics features than DirectX 11, and you get them on all versions of Windows, Mac and Linux, as well as the PS3, Wii, PSP, DS, and iPhone. You also get these features in the rapidly-developing WebGL standard, which may become the foundation for the next generation of browser games.

    If you're a game developer, all I ask is that you do the research and compare the figures, and decide if OpenGL is a better choice. Some programmers prefer the style of the DirectX 11 API to OpenGL, but you're going to be wrapping these low-level APIs in an abstraction layer anyway, so that shouldn't be a deciding factor. If there's anything about OpenGL that you don't like, then just ask the ARB to change it -- they exist to serve you!

    If you're a gamer who uses Windows XP, Mac, or Linux, I hope you can see that DirectX only exists in order to keep new games from reaching your platform, and the only way you can fight back is to support games that use OpenGL.
     
  9. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    13,571 (6.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,506
    Location:
    IA, USA
    I find that very hard to believe as well considering cards are engineered to run DirectX (hardware specifications) first and OpenGL (software specifications) second. The OGL marketed cards (Fire and Quadro) for a long time were just driver modifications to DX engineered cards (in many ways, still are today).

    The article contradicts common sense and what we see in market usage (DX before OGL even though both are fully supported and OGL is required).


    Also, DirectX does more than OpenGL (XInput, DirectSound, DirectCompute, etc.) which is a distinct advantage. OGL only competes with the Direct3D facet of the multifaceted DirectX API.
     
    Darknova, Mussels and heky say thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  10. EastCoasthandle

    EastCoasthandle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,889 (2.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,505
    One setback of OpenGL was video card support. Even today driver support from AMD is considered questionable at best. However, as of 2010 it's far better then it was (lets say) 2008.
     
  11. sneekypeet

    sneekypeet Unpaid Babysitter Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Messages:
    21,570 (6.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,102
    The source is a BLOG, one mans opinion. Who cares really.

    All I know is my starwars titles were Open GL, and they looked like ass, just like the screens from all the other DX games at the time. If whats being said is true, shouldnt my StarWars have looked much better than the games of the day? They didnt!
     
  12. DirectorC

    DirectorC New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,624 (0.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    268
    Location:
    Florizy
    Well you have to take into account developer effort and hardware capabilities. Why would it look better just because its OpenGL if its the same developers and hardware?
     
  13. sneekypeet

    sneekypeet Unpaid Babysitter Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Messages:
    21,570 (6.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,102
    my point exactly, if the writers and developers arent making strides to present a better game than who cares. Produce a game head to head, one of each, and let the public deside. As it sits there is no reason to fight for something end users have yet to see.

    Sorry I dont pay money for "potential".
     
  14. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,679 (13.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,077
    The consumer has no control over what developers use as far as OpenGL or DirectX so really it doesn't matter. The game Prey is a great example of how good OpenGL can be.
     
  15. heky

    heky

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    888 (0.48/day)
    Thanks Received:
    144
    Location:
    Slovenia, Europe
    All Quake titles were also OpenGL if a am not mistaking. correct me if i am wrong.
     
  16. Scheich

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    245 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    20
    directx is just a marketing tool. i bet there are strong incentives for game developers to skip opengl alltogether.
    platform independent means profit loss. now thats EVIL.

    last time i checked (some years) opengl was alot faster than dx, unfortunately these days
    its only one of them, so comparisons are not possible anymore.

    does it really matter how fast the graphiccard is ? look at ati .. their 5770 offers only 20 fps
    in stalker. thats an old game.

    marketing .. makes you want to:nutkick: ms, ati, all of them :laugh:
     
  17. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    13,571 (6.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,506
    Location:
    IA, USA
    Quake is DirectX but there was a "GL Quake" engine spawned off of it with an OpenGL core.
     
    heky says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  18. PP Mguire

    PP Mguire New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,005 (2.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    453
    Location:
    Venus, Texas
    For people defending DX think back to when we had not just 2 but 3 standards. Glide, OpenGL, and DX. Glide was the fastest thing available at the time and when 3dfx went away OpenGL was the better choice. Before DX became widely popular because M$ spouting it in every Windows thing they could put in OpenGL was the better source to render your games in. Any game i had a choice i would use the OpenGL render instead.

    I believe the article from a past point of view knowing OpenGL was the better render but now since everybody and their gay cousin knows DX is very widely used and adopted and so support is much better. Not only that but since devs dont have to optimize their engine for two APIs framerates will definitely be better in DX.
     
  19. Phxprovost

    Phxprovost Xtreme Refugee

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,216 (0.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    262
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Last time i checked there was no royalties to pay for either one so it cost the devs nothing to use directx.. and if they are indeed getting special incentives for using it more power to them. The way i see it is if Direct X is going to keep the struggling pc gaming sector alive alittle longer im all for it. Though dont get me wrong all for open standards...but i would much rather have more games to play
     
  20. JC316

    JC316 Knows what makes you tick

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    Messages:
    9,363 (2.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    906
    +1.

    Glide was the shit. Then for games like Half Life, Open GL whooped the living shit out of DX.
     
  21. DrPepper

    DrPepper The Doctor is in the house

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    7,483 (3.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    813
    Location:
    Scotland (It rains alot)
    I don't think we should be looking at the past to which was faster. Look at what's happening now and in the future for both API's. The past is irrelevant in this case.
     
    Darknova, heky and 95Viper say thanks.
  22. JUDOHAWK New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    171 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11
    I wish OpenGL was still a relevant API these days. If I could play my games in Linux I probably would, that would also mean most likely that Linux drivers would get even more support, especially if most games could be played in linux.

    A big what if though.
     
  23. Wrigleyvillain

    Wrigleyvillain PTFO or GTFO

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,667 (3.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,773
    Location:
    Chicago
  24. DRDNA

    DRDNA

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Messages:
    4,782 (1.52/day)
    Thanks Received:
    566
    Location:
    New York
    I still bench openGL;):toast:
     
  25. TheCrow

    TheCrow New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    399 (0.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    55
    Location:
    Lincoln, UK
    I used to love how smooth games were when using opengl on the old voodoo cards.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page