OS X Metal vs OpenGL benchmark

Of course it does. The D3D11 backend in WoW has had years of optimisation. As have the drivers.

It's going to take time for Metal to shine. But it's showing promise already.

 

WoWs OpenGL renderer has also had years of optimisation and it's in a sorry state, just like the drivers.

Obviously Metal needs time to mature, but until then we have a rotting/abandoned API and an infant API. Neither of which bode well for 3D performance on the Mac.

 

OpenGL in current form in Metal is "legacy" mode API. That is why it is there. New games i presume will be completely Metal based without OpenGL.

 

The OpenGL backend in alpha has been completely re-written to use core profile.
It also needs optimisation.

 

Yeah, I just ran them on the same Mac.
The database seems pretty sparse on OS X results and I'm more interested in my own results anyway.

I'm talking about live, not Alpha. Live performance also trails Windows, despite having years of optimisations.

 

Regarding GFXBench, no ones Metal results have been "2x-3x" faster than OpenGL across the board.

Regarding World of Warcraft,
1) I said Metal was lagging behind Direct3D
2) JordanNZ dismissed this, saying Metal is new and needs optimisation
3) I said the OpenGL also lags behind Direct3D and does not need optimisation
4) JordanNZ misinterpreted this as being about the Alpha client and dismissed it
5) I clarified that I am referring to the live client, which also lags behind Direct3D and has had years of optimisation

Here's a wrap-up of everything I've posted regarding Metal which seems to be so controversial.
- Apple let OpenGL rot for so long it was apparently easier/more productive for them in the long run to port Metal over from iOS than to fix OpenGL
- Metal performs worse than Direct3D
- Metal is improving, but it's not there yet.
- OpenGL on the Mac performs worse than Direct3D
- Despite being abandoned by Apple, OpenGL will remain in widespread use on the Mac until Metal provides features (including ease of porting Direct3D code) and performance OpenGL does not
- GFXBench test results have only demonstrated that Metal performs ahead of OpenGL in specific situations. This is likely to change, however it has still not demonstrated a conclusive performance increase over OpenGL which can be attributed to Metal being superior and not OS X OpenGL being left to rot.

 

I didn't dispute that Metal is currently lagging behind direct3d. Metal IS new, and performance in alpha is already far better than it was at the start. It's already faster than OpenGL.

The live client is running on OpenGL 2.1, and as WoWs features have progressed, this backend has struggled to keep up. Which is why Blizzard re-wrote the entire backend in core profile for the macs that don't support Metal.

 

Rewriting the backend to use OGL 3.3 doesn't change the fact that Apple's OpenGL drivers are still buggy/outdated and this is unlikely to change because of the focus being on Metal.

My point all along has been that Metal is not ready for primetime and OpenGL is not ready to retire, so in the interim we've two mediocre APIs.

 

Nobody is getting results "up to" 2x-3x faster across the board.

 

If you have a Nvidia card you can download their drivers.

Considering metal is already faster than OpenGL (even with the web drivers), I'd hardly say it's mediocre.

If your point is to show that metal isn't as fast as D3D (yet) then you're correct. But the only way it's going to be 'ready for prime time' is to get applications using it, and fixing bugs/optimisation/adding features.

This is already happening.

 

What's the argument here? That Metal currently performs worse than D3D?

All that matters is that it's better than OpenGL going forward, we don't have D3D on OSX and never will, so bringing that into the equation to defend OpenGL (which is slower than D3D on the other platforms using it also) is a strange argument. And so far in terms of speed, the applications using it have shown that it is.

The very nature of Metal being a streamlined API with efficient multi-threading support, and pre-complied shaders already gives it a technical advantage in terms of speed.

 

I don't think "Metal is already faster than OpenGL" tells the whole story, guys. Maybe it would be more accurate to say "Metal is already faster than Apple's OpenGL". In other words, how does the same test perform under OpenGL in OSX and OpenGL in windows ?

It might still be faster or not, but OpenGL in windows might perform better than it's older cousin on OS X side, because of better drivers and/or higher OpenGL version. Ideally, the latest manufacturer's drivers should be used on Windows (e.g. nVidia or AMD) and not Apple's.

 

Or Nvidias OpenGL.. Metal is beating the web drivers in WoW.
None of this matters anyway, because there's no games that matter using OpenGL on Windows.

 

That's true. Just wanted to point out that there's no real benefit from comparing Metal against a dead horse that Apple deliberately left it to die on OS X.

 

Fair point!

 

Mac Pro 4.1 (5.1 patch)
x2 Intel Xeon E5520 2.27GhZ 8 Core's 16 Threads.
40GB DDR3 1066Mhz RAM
EVGA GTX 980 SC
Nvidia GT 120

 

metal was missing some api in EC , Sierra brings some new metal api and we no longer get lock at 119 fps when using GFXBench Metal on screen test look here http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/looks-like-metal-got-an-update.1977661/ post #2 , so it was never vsync