A "Just Visiting" question about OpenGL vs. Direct3D

[fluggo99]

Howdy from the "Desktop Video" forum! I'm a novice at hardware details & high perf gaming, so I'll direct this question to you:

When I run Half-Life on my Dad's PIII 600 MHz with a Voodoo 16MB card under Direct3D and high rez (something bigger than 1024x768, but I can't remember...) I get fantastic performance. But when I run it on my PIII 550 MHz using my Marvel G200 8MB, it runs faster (well, smoother) under OpenGL than under Direct3D. It also goes crappola past 1024x768.

I don't think 50 MHz of processor power would make the difference; certainly video memory would, but how much is really necessary for great performance?

Here's my main questions:

1. Why does the G200 run smoother under OpenGL than under DirectX 6?
2. Why can't I go beyond 1024x768 without a major performance hit (my desktop is 1280x1024)?
3. What's really making the speed difference between my Dad's PC and mine (both identical Dell Dimensions except in processor speed and graphics card)?

[jediphoenix]

well the g200 is really hanging on for dear life over 800 x 600 because it only has 8 megs of ram I suspect. just on opinion and im probably wrong

------------------
***TRUST IN YOUR TECHNOLUST***

[gobrob]

Hi
1.I don't think its the G200 that runs smoother in open gl-its the game.Half-life is coded for opengl first,D3d as like an addon.
2.The 8 megs of video ram make for a major performance hit over1024x768,although when I had mine there wasnt too too much diff from 800x600to 1024x768
3.I would suggest the Major speed diff in computers is in the video cards(if you're talking3d apps as speed)I found a HUGE diff going from g200-8 meg to g400-16.Its not just the more memory,its a whole new generation of video cards.Voodoo cards like your dads are built for speed while Matrox focuses on image quality.

[fluggo99]

Awesome. Thanks, guys!

Man, I love this site!

[Nuno]

It´s not the memory size that limits the G200 at 1024x768: It´s the fill-rate.