Radeon 9700 Mobility. How fast?

[invaLPsion]

Does anybody know how fast the 9700 is in the new powerbooks? Is it the 390MHz version or the 450MHz? (I hope it's the fast one)

Either way, I can't wait to play games like Warcraft 3, UT2K4, and Call of Duty on my new mobile gaming rig. (See specs below) :D

[Dippo]

Here's a decent review on the card:

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/mr9700/

The review says that the card is equilvent to a dekstop Radeon 9600 XT, and as a owner of a desktop Radeon 9600 XT, I can say that most every game play great at 1280x1024.

[Rezet]

Here's a decent review on the card:

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/mr9700/

The review says that the card is equilvent to a dekstop Radeon 9600 XT, and as a owner of a desktop Radeon 9600 XT, I can say that most every game play great at 1280x1024.


It's Normal 9600 Pro really.. speedwise... It will run most games well.

[Dippo]

It's Normal 9600 Pro really.. speedwise... It will run most games well.


It's not like there really is much difference between a 9600 pro and 9600 XT anyways.

The Radeon Mobile 9700 is limited by only having 4 pipelines, unlike the 9700 desktop version which has 8 pipelines.

[lewdvig]

According to the developer notes published today, the GPU is clocked at 392MHz and the Ram is 202 MHz DDR (effectively 404 MHz). The memory interface to the GPU is 128 bit.

This is excellent. It is in 9600 Pro territory here. The 9600 XT is clocked at 500MHz I believe.

Combined with the 1.5 GHz G4 this should be very peppy. In UT2004 terms, you should see 30-35 fps in native resolution bot matches in medium/high detail.

Ths CPU is still the bottleneck though.

:(

With a G5, this laptop would own every single portable the wintel world has to offer. Even those flouro-green plastic alienware rigs.

[Dippo]

According to the developer notes published today, the GPU is clocked at 392MHz and the Ram is 202 MHz DDR (effectively 404 MHz). The memory interface to the GPU is 128 bit.

This is excellent. It is in 9600 Pro territory here. The 9600 XT is clocked at 500MHz I believe.


My Radeon 9600 XT is stock at 500Mhz GPU, and 600Mhz Memory.
Of course I have it overclocked to 560Mhz GPU and 660Mhz Memory :D

I am surprised that the Mobile Radeon 9700 specs are so low.
I wonder if Apple down clocked it some??

[invaLPsion]

My Radeon 9600 XT is stock at 500Mhz GPU, and 600Mhz Memory.
Of course I have it overclocked to 560Mhz GPU and 660Mhz Memory :D

I am surprised that the Mobile Radeon 9700 specs are so low.
I wonder if Apple down clocked it some??

They did, the GPU can run at 450MHz. :(

The 9700 should be enough to get 40-60 FPS or more on UT2K4 on regular matches with no bots, which is what I would play.

Should still be one kickass gaming machine.... :)

[Rezet]

They did, the GPU can run at 450MHz. :(

The 9700 should be enough to get 40-60 FPS or more on UT2K4 on regular matches with no bots, which is what I would play.

Should still be one kickass gaming machine.... :)

Hmm... isn't Ati 9800Pro only like 380Mhz?
Probably totally different structure cuz it sure as hell beats 9700 and 9600 :)

[ZildjianKX]

Combined with the 1.5 GHz G4 this should be very peppy. In UT2004 terms, you should see 30-35 fps in native resolution bot matches in medium/high detail.

Goodluck getting that in Onslaught games.

[benpatient]

Hmm... isn't Ati 9800Pro only like 380Mhz?
Probably totally different structure cuz it sure as hell beats 9700 and 9600


yes.

it's a very different (but not totally different) structure. The 9800 and 9800 pro have 2x the pixel pipelines of the 9600 pro desktop and the 9700 mobile.
They're on different levels completely.


With a G5, this laptop would own every single portable the wintel world has to offer. Even those flouro-green plastic alienware rigs.

Putting a single, declocked G5 into a laptop would actually slow it down in relation to the 1.5 G4...in everything except 64-bit stuff (which is almost nothing).
You've clearly never played a heavy game on a newer mobile PC. the athlon 64 notebooks, or the new dell Inspiron XPS just KILL.

i mean, really:

Inspiron XPS
Intel Pentium 4 3.4-GHz processor
ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 with 128MB DDR Memory
1GB DDR 400-MHz dual-channel memory
60GB 7,200-rpm hard drive
Swappable DVD+RW optical drive
15.4-inch WUXGA display (1920x1200) with 16:10 aspect ratio
DVI output
Integrated Wi-Fi and Bluetooth
Gigabit Ethernet
Subwoofer integrated into battery
4-pin IEEE 1394

that's quite a loaded mobile machine for $3,350

from apple, a fully-loaded new 17" G4 powerbook:
• 1.5GHz PowerPC G4 with 128MB Graphics Memory upgrade
• 1GB DDR333 SDRAM - 2 SO-DIMMs
• 80GB Ultra ATA drive @ 5400rpm (upgraded will only go to 5,400!)
• SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
• AirPort Extreme Card
• Backlit Keyboard/
• 17-inch TFT Display (1440x900)
$3,200

Compromises between the two:

PC costs 150 dollars more, has 20 less GB of HDD standard (it can be upgraded, though), can't run OS X, has smaller (but higher resolution) screen, and only has 1 firewire 400 port

Mac has a larger, but considerably slower,hard drive. cannot swap out CD drive with newer or different models as the dell can. Cannot display full HD video signal (as the dell can) for those who might need it, RAM is single-channel and only 333mhz, computer is just slow in a direct comparison

[benpatient]

oh, and the dell apparently has 200 dollars instant rebate

[invaLPsion]

Compromises between the two:

PC costs 150 dollars more, has 20 less GB of HDD standard (it can be upgraded, though), can't run OS X, has smaller (but higher resolution) screen, and only has 1 firewire 400 port

Mac has a larger, but considerably slower,hard drive. cannot swap out CD drive with newer or different models as the dell can. Cannot display full HD video signal (as the dell can) for those who might need it, RAM is single-channel and only 333mhz, computer is just slow in a direct comparison

You forgot to mention that the XPS weighs like 12lbs and has heat vents on the side and back. It truly is a desktop replacement, because it is a desktop!
:D

[benpatient]

it weighs 8.9 pounds with the bigger battery installed.

the PowerBook weighs 6.9 pounds


You want to see a REAL machine?

http://www.go-l.com/

[Dippo]

it weighs 8.9 pounds with the bigger battery installed.

the PowerBook weighs 6.9 pounds


You want to see a REAL machine?

http://www.go-l.com/


Wow, I like how the extreme version costs $7800! :eek:

[lewdvig]

yes.
Putting a single, declocked G5 into a laptop would actually slow it down in relation to the 1.5 G4...in everything except 64-bit stuff (which is almost nothing). You've clearly never played a heavy game on a newer mobile PC. the athlon 64 notebooks, or the new dell Inspiron XPS just KILL.

The G5 would offer better FSB and better/faster memory performance. A G5 is faster clock for clock.

The Dell you list is kinda gross. That is not a laptop. You can get the eMachines A64 3000+ widescreen, smaller and lighter, plus a DVD writer and 9600 for $2200 CDN!!! If you are going to buy depreciating garbage like a Dell - why pay a premium?

I review PC and Mac games on a variety of platforms. I keep a 3.2GHz P4 with 9800 Pro for games. I know plenty about performance.


Mac has a larger, but considerably slower,hard drive. cannot swap out CD drive with newer or different models as the dell can. Cannot display full HD video signal (as the dell can) for those who might need it, RAM is single-channel and only 333mhz, computer is just slow in a direct comparison

Considerably slower? Are you running Oracle on this thing? If it's fast enough to capture DV (it is) than it is fast enough for anything else. The Dell does not use the Intel 875P chipset, so it is also single channel.

I think the G4 1.5 will compare nicely to a Centrino at the same speed with similar specs. Barefeats has some numbers from the new 1.33 GHz.

[Rezet]

I like how that site totally ripped off apple's site design.
That laptop starts at 4k and I wouldn't trust them with that kinda money.

Having said that, yes PCs are still ahead. Fastest Intel still is faster than DUAL G5 in MOST apps. And laptops don't even compare.
Anyone who thinks here that 17" pbook can compare to Dell XPS laptop speedwise, needs a reality check.
Now having said that, I'd still take Pbook cuz it's slick, runs GOOD OS and still has plenty of power that I'd need. Buying a laptop for games is kinda dumb anyways.

[legion]

Considerably slower? Are you running Oracle on this thing? If it's fast enough to capture DV (it is) than it is fast enough for anything else. The Dell does not use the Intel 875P chipset, so it is also single channel.

I think the G4 1.5 will compare nicely to a Centrino at the same speed with similar specs. Barefeats has some numbers from the new 1.33 GHz.

Some things:

Barefeats did a comparison of the near lowest Centrino (1.3Ghz Pentium M) verses the previous top-o-line G4 PB and the Centrino outperformed the PB handily. The small speed-bumped new PB isn't going to compare much more favourably to the same 1.3 Centrino much less the currently shipping (for about 6 months now) 1.7 Centrino. Beginning of May is the shipping debut of the Dothan Centrinos starting at 1.8 (smaller fab(90nm), more power efficient, larger cache(2x), better vector unit) and the current, newly-released PBs are nowhere near them in performance. Heck, a 1.6Ghz Pentium M performs at near the same-level of a single 2Ghz G5 (actually better than) [personal comparisons from having a dual 2Ghz G5 and a 1.6 P-M in Photoshop and ProAudio tests]

Second, capturing DV has more to do with drive speed than processors. DV is just passing data from tape to hard drive (it's already compresseed 5:1 for DV25.) Working with DigiBeta and 1:1 (uncompressed) material puts a strain on processors and busses (and even more strain on hard drive sustainable rates) because it is actually digitizing as it goes. Using DV capturing as a benchmark for processor performance (or system board) is ridiculous.

And finally, server database apps like Oracle put a strain on I/O. They don't put much of a strain on processors, but file handling, hard drives, and system busses.

[Rezet]

Some things:

Barefeats did a comparison of the near lowest Centrino (1.3Ghz Pentium M) verses the previous top-o-line G4 PB and the Centrino outperformed the PB handily. The small speed-bumped new PB isn't going to compare much more favourably to the same 1.3 Centrino much less the currently shipping (for about 6 months now) 1.7 Centrino. Beginning of May is the shipping debut of the Dothan Centrinos starting at 1.8 (smaller fab(90nm), more power efficient, larger cache(2x), better vector unit) and the current, newly-released PBs are nowhere near them in performance. Heck, a 1.6Ghz Pentium M performs at near the same-level of a single 2Ghz G5 (actually better than) [personal comparisons from having a dual 2Ghz G5 and a 1.6 P-M in Photoshop and ProAudio tests]

Second, capturing DV has more to do with drive speed than processors. DV is just passing data from tape to hard drive (it's already compresseed 5:1 for DV25.) Working with DigiBeta and 1:1 (uncompressed) material puts a strain on processors and busses (and even more strain on hard drive sustainable rates) because it is actually digitizing as it goes. Using DV capturing as a benchmark for processor performance (or system board) is ridiculous.

And finally, server database apps like Oracle put a strain on I/O. They don't put much of a strain on processors, but file handling, hard drives, and system busses.

Interesting point. I agree about DV capturing. But I'd like to see the stats where 1.6 Centrino is faster than 2Ghz Single G5.

[lewdvig]

Some things:
Second, capturing DV has more to do with drive speed than processors. DV is just passing data from tape to hard drive (it's already compresseed 5:1 for DV25.) Working with DigiBeta and 1:1 (uncompressed) material puts a strain on processors and busses (and even more strain on hard drive sustainable rates) because it is actually digitizing as it goes. Using DV capturing as a benchmark for processor performance (or system board) is ridiculous.
And finally, server database apps like Oracle put a strain on I/O. They don't put much of a strain on processors, but file handling, hard drives, and system busses.

Duh! It was a reference to a drive speed comment. Thanks for not reading the previous post and stating the obvious. You get a gold star.

[lewdvig]

Interesting point. I agree about DV capturing. But I'd like to see the stats where 1.6 Centrino is faster than 2Ghz Single G5.

In UT2003 botmatches the Centrino was about 75% of the performance of the dual 2GHz - with a slower video card that may have been fill rate limited. The Centrino laptop tested was almost a match for the dual 1.8GHz G5 and certainly for the single.

Centrino is a fine CPU - you won't get an argument from me.

The 1.5 GHz PB is not appreciably faster in some games than previous model: UT2003/4 in particular. Maybe its a system bus bottleneck??? There are some nice pickups in Halo - almost playable on a Mac notebook.

If I could get a decent metal Centrino I would be tempted to get one.

http://www.barefeats.com/al15b.html
http://www.barefeats.com/al15.html
http://www.barefeats.com/p4game.html

[ZildjianKX]

In UT2003 botmatches the Centrino was about 75% of the performance of the dual 2GHz - with a slower video card that may have been fill rate limited. The Centrino laptop tested was almost a match for the dual 1.8GHz G5 and certainly for the single.

Centrino is a fine CPU - you won't get an argument from me.

You know the SP and DP systems are pretty equivalent in games, right? Only the sound processing in OS X is handed over to the 2nd processor in games, which makes about a 2-4 FPS difference in performance between a SP 1.8 and a DP 1.8. So if it's almost a match for the DP 1.8, that doesn't make it a match for the SP 1.8 :) There were tons of biased game reviews against the SP vs DP systems since the stock 2.0 GHz G5s were benched against the stock SP 1.8s... and a Radeon 9600 creams a GeForce NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra.

Also... the Pentium-M is the CPU, not the Centrino :p

[kallaway1]

So would a centrino laptop actually be better for gaming than a powerbook then? Assuming you could find one with a decent graphics card (which I've been unable to do)... I plan on buying a laptop around three months from now and I want it to be relatively thin and and nice looking, but also able to handle World of Warcraft oooh-so-smoothly. I've been looking at IBM's t-41 and also the powerbook so far but I'd love to hear any other recommendations (except dell, hp or compaq :mad: bad experiences with all three).

[invaLPsion]

So would a centrino laptop actually be better for gaming than a powerbook then? Assuming you could find one with a decent graphics card (which I've been unable to do)... I plan on buying a laptop around three months from now and I want it to be relatively thin and and nice looking, but also able to handle World of Warcraft oooh-so-smoothly. I've been looking at IBM's t-41 and also the powerbook so far but I'd love to hear any other recommendations (except dell, hp or compaq :mad: bad experiences with all three).

A new powerbook with a 9700 will without a doubt handle WoW smoothly. I've seen reports from beta testers saying that they achieved 30FPS or more an a dual 500MHz G4 with Radeon 7000.

WoW's requirements will be well under the 1.5GHz G4 that a powerbook has to offer and well under the 128 megs of VRAM. WoW will be very playable on a new powerbook. Blizzard has always done a great job of ensuring playability of their games for ALL systems.

[invaLPsion]

To further my previous post, the current required specs for the Mac WoW beta are a 1GHz G4 and 64 megs of video ram. However, Blizzard announced that these system requirements will drop considerably, likely to 800MHz and 32 megs of VRAM.

Don't you worry about playing WoW on a new powerbook... :) I'm not.

[lewdvig]

So would a centrino laptop actually be better for gaming than a powerbook then? Assuming you could find one with a decent graphics card (which I've been unable to do)... I plan on buying a laptop around three months from now and I want it to be relatively thin and and nice looking, but also able to handle World of Warcraft oooh-so-smoothly. I've been looking at IBM's t-41 and also the powerbook so far but I'd love to hear any other recommendations (except dell, hp or compaq :mad: bad experiences with all three).

Compaq has a nice cheap one
http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&dept=1&WLBS=fsweb12&sku_id=0665000FS10035092&catid=&newdeptid=1
-this one uses the 9200 (essentially a RADEON 8500). UT2004 would play fine on this at medium settings at the native LCD resolution.

but this one really stands out:
http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&dept=1&WLBS=fsweb14&sku_id=0665000FS10039898&catid=&newdeptid=1
Athlon64 with Radeon 9600

Prices are CDN (sorry) take off about 30% for USD price.

[lewdvig]

You know the SP and DP systems are pretty equivalent in games, right? Only the sound processing in OS X is handed over to the 2nd processor in games, which makes about a 2-4 FPS difference in performance between a SP 1.8 and a DP 1.8. So if it's almost a match for the DP 1.8, that doesn't make it a match for the SP 1.8 :) There were tons of biased game reviews against the SP vs DP systems since the stock 2.0 GHz G5s were benched against the stock SP 1.8s... and a Radeon 9600 creams a GeForce NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra.

Also... the Pentium-M is the CPU, not the Centrino :p

Centrino is the term used to describe all of Intels IP bundled together. That includes the Banias or Dothan processors which when purchased w/o the other stuff are refered to as Pentium-M. So the way I used Centrino is in fact valid.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7099

:p

[ZildjianKX]

Cenrino is the term used to describe all of Intels IP bundled together. That includes the Banias or Dothan processors which when purchsed w/o the other stuff are refered to as Pentium-M. So the way I used Centrino is in fact valid.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7099

:p

Still, isn't Centrino the chipset? I really don't care one way or the other, but that's just what I thought.

[Toreador93]

kallaway1:

Want a Pentium M with an ATI 9700? Hypersonic Aviator CX6 (http://secure.hypersonic-pc.com/scripts/custom_sys.asp?sysid=Aviator_CX6). Price is just about the same as the 15" PB.

[ZildjianKX]

kallaway1:

Want a Pentium M with an ATI 9700? Hypersonic Aviator CX6 (http://secure.hypersonic-pc.com/scripts/custom_sys.asp?sysid=Aviator_CX6). Price is just about the same as the 15" PB.

Wow, two things I find super cool... one, for $49 they gurantee no stuck or dead pixels... and two, you can order a laptop with no OS preinstalled.

[crazzyeddie]

In UT2003 botmatches the Centrino was about 75% of the performance of the dual 2GHz - with a slower video card that may have been fill rate limited. The Centrino laptop tested was almost a match for the dual 1.8GHz G5 and certainly for the single.

Centrino is a fine CPU - you won't get an argument from me.

The 1.5 GHz PB is not appreciably faster in some games than previous model: UT2003/4 in particular. Maybe its a system bus bottleneck???

Thats because all the Unreal games run in DirectX on the PC but OpenGL on the Mac. Comparing results of DirectX vs OpenGL isn't really fair, unless on a very broad scale Mac vs PC argument. If you want to compare directly, compare to a PC running Linux, since Linux also uses OpenGL for Unreal.

[ZildjianKX]

Thats because all the Unreal games run in DirectX on the PC but OpenGL on the Mac. Comparing results of DirectX vs OpenGL isn't really fair, unless on a very broad scale Mac vs PC argument. If you want to compare directly, compare to a PC running Linux, since Linux also uses OpenGL for Unreal.

Or you can can just change it to OpenGL in the video config menu in UT2003/2004. That works for almost any PC game. It would be interesting to see how much that hurts the performance.

[Dippo]

Or you can can just change it to OpenGL in the video config menu in UT2003/2004. That works for almost any PC game. It would be interesting to see how much that hurts the performance.


I tried to change UT2004 to OpenGL to see if there was a difference, but there was no OpenGL option. I thought that was very weird!

[Rezet]

I tried to change UT2004 to OpenGL to see if there was a difference, but there was no OpenGL option. I thought that was very weird!

LoL yeah, there is no such option. PC ver is powered by Direct X 9 only.
and Mac version by Open Gl only. And Direct X owns Open GL plain and simple.

[bux]

And Direct X owns Open GL plain and simple

Well, that depends.... Open GL owns Direct X very much when it comes to the API.
The Open GL API is much cleaner and easier to understand and the Direct X API contains all the strange "windows types" and strange calls (IMO).
Maybe Direct X owns Open GL because Direct X isn't only for graphics, or what do you mean?

EDIT: Also Direct X sucks big time because it's not a cross platform library.

[Diatribe]

Does anyone have a comparison between the 9700 and the 5200 with 64MB?

[Dippo]

Does anyone have a comparison between the 9700 and the 5200 with 64MB?

I am pretty sure that the 9700 is going own the 5200.

I can't find any reviews on them though.

Maybe the go5700 would be a better match for the Radeon mobile 9700.

[invaLPsion]

I am pretty sure that the 9700 is going own the 5200.

I can't find any reviews on them though.

Maybe the go5700 would be a better match for the Radeon mobile 9700.

You can find benchmarks pitting the 9700 and 5700 against eachother. in most cases, the 9700 imerges victorious. In some tests, quite substantially.

[Diatribe]

You can find benchmarks pitting the 9700 and 5700 against eachother. in most cases, the 9700 imerges victorious. In some tests, quite substantially.

I'd like to see that comparison because I cannot seem to find any. Do you have a link?

[ZildjianKX]

I tried to change UT2004 to OpenGL to see if there was a difference, but there was no OpenGL option. I thought that was very weird!

I just checked too, sorry I gave bad advise. I know Half-Life and most other PC games have an OpenGL rendering option... does anyone know if UT2003 did as well? I didn't realize UT2004 was DX only for windows (besides software mode).

[Rezet]

Well, that depends.... Open GL owns Direct X very much when it comes to the API.
The Open GL API is much cleaner and easier to understand and the Direct X API contains all the strange "windows types" and strange calls (IMO).
Maybe Direct X owns Open GL because Direct X isn't only for graphics, or what do you mean?

EDIT: Also Direct X sucks big time because it's not a cross platform library.

HAHA. Humor me. I guess developers just prefer to work on a not so clean inferrior products. And somehow those products they make almost always end up working faster and better that with clean OPEN GL.
If you really think OPEN GL is better, you probably need to lay off some of that smoky stuff. You may not like MS, but give credit when it belongs. :rolleyes:

[benpatient]

the only time i ever had a better experience with oGL than with directX was when i had a voodoo card.

since then, on both nVidia and ATI hardware, i've always ended up playing the DX codepath because oGL never seemed as fast or pretty or stable.

Just from personal gaming experience over the last 10 years or so, I'd have to say that DX owns...even if it is proprietary and dirty and evil.

Everybody is always talking about how apple is into open standards and they dont like proprietary code and all of that...which is why i find it so interesting that their 2 best pieces of software (OS X and iTunes) are entirely proprietary.

OS X is "built on" open standards...but that just means it's cheaper for apple...if it were "embracing open standards" instead of just taking advantage of them, then OS X would be able to run on hardware that wasn't purchased through your local Apple dealer.

[lewdvig]

Thats because all the Unreal games run in DirectX on the PC but OpenGL on the Mac. Comparing results of DirectX vs OpenGL isn't really fair, unless on a very broad scale Mac vs PC argument. If you want to compare directly, compare to a PC running Linux, since Linux also uses OpenGL for Unreal.


You can run the OGL version of PC UT2004 it makes almost no difference in FPS - they have had an unsupported OGL renderer for ages. The very first version of Unreal used GLIDE which was 3DFX's mini OGL API. Install the unsupported, slower OGL renderer on the PC version of UT and it will still pummel any Mac.

I have heard this arguement before from some Mac people. It is pretty ignorant. All Quake engined games are OGL ONLY on both platforms. PCs still run Quake III faster and DX has nothing to do with it.

DirectX has always been the slower graphics API on the PC side. MS has coopted developers into using DX. That is the biggest difference.

[lewdvig]

HAHA. Humor me. I guess developers just prefer to work on a not so clean inferrior products. And somehow those products they make almost always end up working faster and better that with clean OPEN GL.
If you really think OPEN GL is better, you probably need to lay off some of that smoky stuff. You may not like MS, but give credit when it belongs. :rolleyes:

Yes, listen to Rezet. Not John Carmack, developer of Doom III who only writes to OGL because it is open.

Rezet, developers often take the path of least resistance. They don't pick what API to program for, the market does that for them. Every windows box ships with at least DX 8 now.

You obviously know very little about anything judging by your frequent uninformed posts.

[lewdvig]

http://cwdohnal.home.mindspring.com/utglr/

or just use the OGL.dll installed in your ut2004/system directory.

use UTbinder to select the renderer that you would like to use.

[lewdvig]

To answer the original question. The RADEON 9700 is BY FAR the fastest mobile GPU on the market and will be until either the ATI R420 or Nvidia NV40 based mobile part become available - probably next spring.

Apple made an excellent choice.

The 15" and 17" G4 PowerBooks should now rival the Pentium-M/Centrino laptops at similar speeds in most applications and some games (Halo most notably).

[benpatient]

lewdvig, john caramac is a great guy and he's brilliant and i can't wait for his latest creation, but just because he decides to do something doesn't mean that it's the best thing to use for most people. he uses open GL simply because he wanted to create entirely new codepaths for EVERYTHING. the reason doom 3 has taken so long is because john c has, as usual, re-written the book. You can't do that with DX as easily because the API isn't, as has been said, as clean as open GL...

if it wasn't time prihibitive, john would probably have written doom 3's render paths in assembly instead...except that he has personally had a great deal of involvement in the development of openGL over the years...of course he wants to use that...it's actually partially HIS baby...

and as has been stated here now, and as you can verify on your own if you choose, every unreal engine-based game will run in openGL mode faster on a PC than on an "equivalent" or even usually "faster" mac.

games that i have personally run in oGL mode using the unreal engine on a PC:

Unreal
Unreal Tournament
Deus Ex
Wheel of Time
UT: 2003
Unreal 2

I happen to like the way oGL renders some things, and my old GeForce 3 liked openGL more than D3D back before 9 came out...so i have a fondness for openGL myself.

but i can assure you that all of those games (the ones that you can actually get for a mac) run quite well in the non-MS graphics mode...

one thing i like with OpenGL is all the cool effects that the ATI drivers will let you apply to the games (like black and white, chrome, sketch, etc). the D3D ATI drivers do it, too, but some of my favorite modes are oGL only...

and PC only.

[lewdvig]

lewdvig, john caramac is a great guy and he's brilliant and i can't wait for his latest creation, but just because he decides to do something doesn't mean that it's the best thing to use for most people. he uses open GL simply because he wanted to create entirely new codepaths for EVERYTHING. the reason doom 3 has taken so long is because john c has, as usual, re-written the book. You can't do that with DX as easily because the API isn't, as has been said, as clean as open GL...


I said that I would rather trust the judgement of Carmack on this issue rather than Rezet. My reasons for prefering OGL are based on performance.

Since we agree on almost everything I will just point out that Carmack's choice of OGL is much more rationally based than you assert. I doubt he would say he loves it or considers it his baby.

Re: Codepaths, Code paths are common in DX games too. Halo has four. You don't need OGL for this.

Re: OGL, OGL predates all 3D id software that I know of. And Carmack has no more pull than anyone else. The move from OGL 1.1 to 2 has taken what, 5 years? More? Game related stuff has almost no pull.

It is a solid multiplatform API that seeks to be best of breed.