Tweet
If a video card has both good opengl and d3d drivers, there shouldn´t be any difference - if any, an opengl ICD should be faster, because all the rendering process is done in the ICD, that can (should) be highly optimized for that card, while in D3D some of the processing takes places in the D3d windows routines (DirectX) , that are the same for all the cards.
Unfortunely, this is still not the point with Matrox ICD (D3D tend to be faster), but hopefully they are getting there - hey, Half Life is already faster in OpenGl than D3D with my G200, but then again, they say the D3D HL is only a wrapper in disguise... oh well, with beta ICD´s it was slower... you get the point.
As for image quality, this is only my personal experience, but I think that OGL graphics are more crisp. Half-life, for instance, the textures in D3D seem to be more blurry, over-filtered, the colors not so vibrant.
Unfortunely, this is still not the point with Matrox ICD (D3D tend to be faster), but hopefully they are getting there - hey, Half Life is already faster in OpenGl than D3D with my G200, but then again, they say the D3D HL is only a wrapper in disguise... oh well, with beta ICD´s it was slower... you get the point.
As for image quality, this is only my personal experience, but I think that OGL graphics are more crisp. Half-life, for instance, the textures in D3D seem to be more blurry, over-filtered, the colors not so vibrant.
I though it was in that way... at least I got it right in the image quality
Comment