GPL D3D/open GL

by **R A Wrigh** » Tue, 05 Jun 2001 03:54:20

I have just downloaded the beta 1.04.01 for win 95/98/me the link is
www.3dfx.com/downloads.htm

Regards

Bob

> What do you mean by the x3dfx drivers update and where do i get hold of
> them.
> Thanks

> > Kevin,
> > Check out some of the V5 optimization guides... I have a little more
> > processor power under the hood than you (1.2Ghz. T'bird) but I
definately
> > get much better performance and graphics out of glide than D3D. I sit a
a
> > solid 36fps. no matter if it's a full field and I'm at the back of the
> pack
> > (it happens more than I'd like to admit) or just running training laps.
> > Glide looks so much better than D3D that I wouldn't even consider
running
> > D3D... so, I can't say if D3D has the same framerates as I have only
tried
> > D3D a couple of times and immediately went back to glide. FWIW, I run
the
> > x3dfx drivers over the last driver issued by 3dfx... you need the tools
> part
> > from the last 3dfx driver installed before you install the x3dfx update.
> > Good luck,
> > Robin

> > > I have a PIII 500 and a voodoo 5 5500 graphic card. I seem to get
better
> > > results usind D3D when I thought it would be other way around, is this
> > > normal. What are the best drivers for this card and GPL.
> > > Thanks

> > > Kev Barnes

by **Simon Brow** » Tue, 05 Jun 2001 09:19:36

You seem to have misunderstood, I'm not trying to prove any point here.
It's wasn't me that was saying D3D was running faster than Glide, it was Kev
Barnes and Edward C. All I was doing was passing on a bit of info I'd heard
that I thought might explain it.

> > Eh? I never commented on how it looked. I was trying to explain why
D3D
> > may give better frame rates than Glide on a V5 in GPL.

> OK, however "may" is the operative the word here. ;-)

> > Like I said, Glide is very old, it was last updated when people were
> running
> > games in 640*480 and 800*600, and it is not optimized for high
> resolutions.
> > In other words, it's designed to be fast at low resolutions.

> Since I didn't design the Glide API, I can't speak to that. It was
> probably designed at a time when those two resolutions were the norm.

> > The fact that you run in 1600*1200 seems to prove the point, but to be
> sure,
> > you could see if D3D was still faster than Glide in GPL at 640*480.

> I don't run it at 1600x1200. I did some tests this morning, interesting
> results for sure.

> One problem with testing is everyones system is different. Here's my
> specifications.

> Intel P3-733
> Genuine Intel motherboard.
> Windows ME, 512MB RAM.
> VooDoo5 AGP.
> DirectX 8.0. 3DFX drivers 4.12.01.

> The other problem is where/how to test. I chose Watkins Glen, every
detail
> option enabled, detail slider in the middle.
> Skipped the practice and recorded three values, all while sitting at the
> back of the 19 car pack. I held the brake and didn't move the whole time.

> Note - FSAA was off in all tests.

> Value 1 = Everyone sitting idle, waiting for the flag to drop.
> Value 2 = Pack is starting to move, frame rate drops but stabilizes then
> increases. Value is aproximate stabilize value.
> Value 3 = All cars are off screen.

> Here's my results.

> www.accesscable.net/~positiveg/d3d-vs-glide.html