Qartz Extreme vs. 3D

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by etoiles, Mar 1, 2003.

  1. etoiles macrumors 6502a

    etoiles

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Location:
    Where the air is crisp
    #1
    ...so isn't QE eating up a lot of 3D resources ? If the UI is drawn using the graphics card hardware accelleration and memory, isn't that a big hit for 3D apps and games ?
     
  2. Megaquad macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    #2
    nope because you are not doing anything with GUI, you are not touching it while playing a game
     
  3. etoiles thread starter macrumors 6502a

    etoiles

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Location:
    Where the air is crisp
    #3
    but what about 3D graphics applications (maya, lightwave etc.) that rely heavily on open-GL ?

    Isn't OSX 'cornered' there ?
     
  4. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #4
    The 3D accelerator is not doing anything with Quartz if Quartz is just standing still. If you use Maya, the full power of the 3D accelerator will go to Maya unless you take it away by doing e.g. genie effect minimizations outside of Maya.
     
  5. Megaquad macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    #5
    speed improvement in interface speed with QE is pretty minimal, if any.. but what matters is that with QE interface takes lot less cpu power and resources, schiller showed it in that "power of x" presentation.. pretty cool stuff
     
  6. etoiles thread starter macrumors 6502a

    etoiles

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Location:
    Where the air is crisp
    #6
    I am still a bit confused (sorry)

    on the apple quartz webpage, They say:"Quartz uses the integrated OpenGL technology to convert each window into a texture, then sends it to the graphics card to render on-screen"

    So is this only done when you move a window around, or change a window ? Or is every window stored as an OpenGL texture all the time (=using quite a few resources on the video card) ? Maybe I am just being paranoid here, but I suspect there must be a performance hit either way, even if the card switches between drawing the UI and the content.

    I agree that QE looks supercool, and I understand that it takes some load off the cpu, but when working in 3D I'd rather have the graphics card focus on what is going on inside the windows rather than the windows themselves. Which takes us back to the old question: do all the aqua gimmicks make sense in a production environment (graphics) ? Or has the mac evolved into a living room computer, like a sort of designer couch - more form than function, but damn impressive (ouch, am I gonna get flamed for this :D )
     

Share This Page