Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Actually game developers just have to make an OpenGL rendering backend for their game. OpenGL performance is equal in OS X and Windows, the majority of performance issues with ports stem from OpenGL wrappers/renderers which are poorly made or misuse an API feature.

No, its not. Windows drivers are generally faster. The reason behind it is simple: games. GPU vendors can sell more cards if they are performing better in games, this is why they optimise the heck out of the drivers to make common API usage scenarios faster. Modern GPU drivers are a huge mess, as they contain lots of hacks which would allow them to perform better in games, up to on-the-fly shader rewriting and other stuff. The reason DirectX is slightly faster then GL on Windows, is simply because more games use DX so vendors would concentrate on speeding that API up. In contrast, Apple's implementation is still fairly generic.

I do believe that we need a new kind of API... an API that would most closely expose the modern GPU hardware. OpenGL would still need a major clean-up, but the core profiles are a big step up. I am still very disappointed that the original Longs Peak didn't fly, that was a very elegant API design...
 
so...blizzard had all the games like starcraft /diablo use OpenGl 3, so the improvements you see is tha gap between opengl 1.2-v3. So the developers will have to bring even more to make their games support opengl 4 and i thing beginning with 2014 will have no more differences between windows and maverciks performance

No Blizzard games currently use OpenGL 3.2 on OSX. They're still using the 2.1 path.

Blizzard said that they will use OpenGL 4.1/3.2 IF it makes the games faster...
 
No, its not. Windows drivers are generally faster. The reason behind it is simple: games. GPU vendors can sell more cards if they are performing better in games, this is why they optimise the heck out of the drivers to make common API usage scenarios faster. Modern GPU drivers are a huge mess, as they contain lots of hacks which would allow them to perform better in games, up to on-the-fly shader rewriting and other stuff. The reason DirectX is slightly faster then GL on Windows, is simply because more games use DX so vendors would concentrate on speeding that API up. In contrast, Apple's implementation is still fairly generic.

I do believe that we need a new kind of API... an API that would most closely expose the modern GPU hardware. OpenGL would still need a major clean-up, but the core profiles are a big step up. I am still very disappointed that the original Longs Peak didn't fly, that was a very elegant API design...

What you're saying is essentially what I was saying earlier: The performance difference tends to be between OpenGL and Direct3D implementations of the games' rendering backends, rather than the fact that it runs on OS X or Windows. Most high-profile windows games use Direct3D - drivers don't have specific OpenGL optimizations for those games on any operating system.

As seen here, there are many small variations in GL performance that go way beyond OS X versus Windows, and more often than not depend on very specific uses of the API that's implemented slightly differently on different drivers (within Windows even): http://www.g-truc.net/post-0552.html#menu http://www.g-truc.net/post-0547.html#menu

Another tangential tidbit: Both OpenGL and Direct3D 10/11 will nearly always be faster than Direct3D 9. D3D9 has a high function call overhead compared to the other APIs.
 
Last edited:
You're looking at the 'Compatibility profile' Change it to 'Core Profile' and look again.

Thanks, I will check it once I can access my iMac.

Could you explain me what's difference between "compatibility profile" and "core pro file"?
 
As seen here, there are many small variations in GL performance that go way beyond OS X versus Windows, and more often than not depend on very specific uses of the API that's implemented slightly differently on different drivers (within Windows even): http://www.g-truc.net/post-0552.html#menu http://www.g-truc.net/post-0547.html#menu

Another tangential tidbit: Both OpenGL and Direct3D 10/11 will nearly always be faster than Direct3D 9. D3D9 has a high function call overhead compared to the other APIs.

As Netkas pointed out in another thread, it does not make much sense to use these benchmarks for API comparisons because we have no idea how they are written internally and what feature sets they are using. This is particularly problematic with OpenGL with its extensions... what one would need is a series of microbenchmarks using optimal API snippets which would benchmark specific aspects...
 
Remember that Mavricks contain a lot of under-the-hood changes. Drivers are not likely the only reasons it's smoother for games on Mavricks but the rest of the changes they made to the core of OS X.
 
I would like to see complete 4.2 support and maybe some of .3 around the release.

Please, do tell me what feature of 4.2 and 4.3 are you waiting on so badly that we need it in a few months? Yeah, I'd like it, too, but I swear, almost all people on this forum are demanding features they don't understand.

Also, if it's true that Blizzard is still using 2.1 for their Mac games, I'm calling BS that porting to 3.2 and beyond wouldn't improve performance. 2.1 is ancient, and we've already seen from other developers like Valve where supporting additional OpenGL extensions that belong to versions beyond 2.1 dramatically improves performance.

Most likely, any performance gains we're seeing in Maverick at the moment are simply driver improvements, which is a big deal in itself.
 
Please, do tell me what feature of 4.2 and 4.3 are you waiting on so badly that we need it in a few months? Yeah, I'd like it, too, but I swear, almost all people on this forum are demanding features they don't understand.

I fully agree! Furthermore, 4.2 does not really bring anything interesting to the table. OpenGL 4.3 is a different story - it offers debugging capabilities, serious enhancements to the shaders and texture views and ETC texture compression. All of these are really big things!
 
Please, do tell me what feature of 4.2 and 4.3 are you waiting on so badly that we need it in a few months? Yeah, I'd like it, too, but I swear, almost all people on this forum are demanding features they don't understand.

Also, if it's true that Blizzard is still using 2.1 for their Mac games, I'm calling BS that porting to 3.2 and beyond wouldn't improve performance. 2.1 is ancient, and we've already seen from other developers like Valve where supporting additional OpenGL extensions that belong to versions beyond 2.1 dramatically improves performance.

Most likely, any performance gains we're seeing in Maverick at the moment are simply driver improvements, which is a big deal in itself.

Blizz are using plenty of 3+ extensions. But their engine backends are still based around 2.1.
 
I fully agree! Furthermore, 4.2 does not really bring anything interesting to the table. OpenGL 4.3 is a different story - it offers debugging capabilities, serious enhancements to the shaders and texture views and ETC texture compression. All of these are really big things!

And you didn't even mention Compute Shaders! :)
4.3 is pretty killer, but only nvidia currently has complete support for it out of any vendor on any system...
 
And you didn't even mention Compute Shaders! :)
4.3 is pretty killer, but only nvidia currently has complete support for it out of any vendor on any system...

Its part of the 'serious enhancements to the shaders' :p
 
Please, do tell me what feature of 4.2 and 4.3 are you waiting on so badly that we need it in a few months? Yeah, I'd like it, too, but I swear, almost all people on this forum are demanding features they don't understand.

Also, if it's true that Blizzard is still using 2.1 for their Mac games, I'm calling BS that porting to 3.2 and beyond wouldn't improve performance. 2.1 is ancient, and we've already seen from other developers like Valve where supporting additional OpenGL extensions that belong to versions beyond 2.1 dramatically improves performance.

Most likely, any performance gains we're seeing in Maverick at the moment are simply driver improvements, which is a big deal in itself.

I'm not really demanding just would like to see Apple support the latest opengl version for once.

Is that too much to ask?
 
Blizzard already official said that if supporting OpenGL 4 will improve performance they will make add ons /patches for every big games starcraft/diablo/wow.
Where did you get that from? Blizz guys at us forums told something like that regarding WOW only.
From personal conversation with them, it looks like about 30% of D3 players on Mac are still using 10.6 or below. And moving to core profile OpenGL 3.2/4 means leaving those 30% overboard.
It's kinda sad for me personally, since D3 is my favorite Blizz game so far.
 
Where did you get that from? Blizz guys at us forums told something like that regarding WOW only.
From personal conversation with them, it looks like about 30% of D3 players on Mac are still using 10.6 or below. And moving to core profile OpenGL 3.2/4 means leaving those 30% overboard.
It's kinda sad for me personally, since D3 is my favorite Blizz game so far.

The devs work on all games. They can launch two builds if needed.
 
for blizzard is not..they have the power, for EA i think as well..maybe for companies like that make league of legends
 
for blizzard is not..they have the power, for EA i think as well..maybe for companies like that make league of legends
if that wasn't a problem for blizz, we would already have the second build of graphics engine for the game released more than a year ago, that uses a core profile of opengl version Apple started providing two years ago, don't you think?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.