Re: Performance OpenGL <-> IRISGL

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Steve Baker (steve++at++mred.bgm.link.com)
Fri, 20 Jun 97 07:50:49 -0500


> I was wondering if someone could shed some light one the subject of performance
> as far as the choice bewteen OpenGL and IRIS GL is concerened. I know that
> OpenGL is available for 64 bit machine and that Iris GL isn't. But in my
> experience IRIS GL appears to be faster than OpenGL in 32 bit mode is that also
> true in comparison with the 64 bits version of OpenGL ??

It depends on which hardware you are using. On all of the more recent
SGI machines, IrisGL is only emulated on top of OpenGL - so it's hard
to imagine how it could be more efficient.

If you have an RE2 though, it's my understanding the both IrisGL and OpenGL
are 'native' implementations, so in theory, there isn't much to choose
between them. However, in my experience, the OpenGL on RE2 is somewhat
flakey - and certainly not as well optimised as IrisGL.

On very ancient machines like VGXT's, there is no native OpenGL - I'm not
sure - but there was talk of an emulation of OpenGL on top of IrisGL.

IMHO: If you are doing anything new, you probably ought to stick with
      OpenGL since IrisGL support is going away *soon*.

Steve Baker 817-619-1361 (Vox-Lab)
Hughes Training Inc. 817-619-8776 (Vox-Office/Vox-Mail)
2200 Arlington Downs Road 817-619-4028 (Fax)
Arlington, Texas. TX 76005-6171 Steve++at++MrEd.bgm.link.com (eMail)
http://www.hti.com (external) http://MrEd.bgm.link.com/staff/steve (intranet)
                                http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1 (external)

** Beware of Geeks bearing GIF's. **

=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://www.sgi.com/Technology/Performer/
            Submissions: info-performer++at++sgi.com
        Admin. requests: info-performer-request++at++sgi.com


New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:55:29 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.