Part of the Khronos Group
OpenGL.org

The Industry's Foundation for High Performance Graphics

from games to virtual reality, mobile phones to supercomputers

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Detailed OpenGL vs. DirectX Comparison

  1. #1
    Junior Member Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Posts
    5

    Detailed OpenGL vs. DirectX Comparison

    Hi, I'd like to find a detailed technical comparison between OpenGL and DirectX. It can be based on your personal experience as a programmer, or you can direct me to some related web address.

    Thanks in advance.

  2. #2
    Member Regular Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    macedon, ny
    Posts
    289

    Re: Detailed OpenGL vs. DirectX Comparison

    Well, once a month 'on the average' there is a VERY in depth discussion between OpenGL, and DirectX within the OpenGL forums. Simply do a search, and you should find most of what you want to know. But if you want some of my opinion here it is.

    OpenGL Pros:
    1. VERY easy to learn basics, but yet has the ability to become VERY VERY powerfull in the advanced.
    2. Open platform, will run on anything with an windowed OS, (Win32, Mac, Linux, Beos, etc)
    3. The syntax dosnt change, opengl is currently at verstion 1.4, with all the versions able to work withone another, and the syntax has stayed the same throughout, so old code will work with new.
    4. HIGHLY adaptive. Through the use of ARB extensions, all the 'latest and greatest' 'stuff' can be supported on various cards.
    5. NOT com based.
    6. The list goes on.

    OpenGL Cons
    1. Cant think of any.

    DirectX Pros
    1. Xbox is driven by DirectX.
    2. Number 1 was about it.

    DirectX Cons
    1. NOT open platform, win32 ONLY.
    2. Syntax changes with EVERY update.
    3. Hell MS couldnt even get it to run on NT4.0,(how sad is that).
    4. COMPLICATED syntax based on com. It takes like 200 lines of code, to theorize the possible existance of a container to hold a god damned triangle.
    5. Brought to you by the creaters of the buggiest software known to man.

    (Oh by the way, if you are really compairing the 2 it is unfair, because OpenGL is STRICTLY Graphics, and DirectX is graphics, sound, input, etc; BUT I get around this limitation by using Opengl (graphics) devIL (image loading for OpenGL) OpenAL (sound) GLUT (Input), All of which use OpenGL syntax, so there is NO need to learn anything totaly new, and there ALL open platform) All of these combined, make DirectX look like crap.

  3. #3
    Member Regular Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jonesboro
    Posts
    256

    Re: Detailed OpenGL vs. DirectX Comparison

    If I could, I would mod you up as Insightful.

  4. #4
    Member Regular Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    352

    Re: Detailed OpenGL vs. DirectX Comparison

    Nooooooooooo ! Not the ol' ogl-vs-d3d thread again !

  5. #5
    Senior Member OpenGL Guru
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    3,576

    Re: Detailed OpenGL vs. DirectX Comparison

    4. HIGHLY adaptive. Through the use of ARB extensions, all the 'latest and greatest' 'stuff' can be supported on various cards.
    That isn't even true. You need to use vendor-specific extensions to get the "'latest and greatest' 'stuff'". The ARB is very slow at creating ARB extensions for functionality.

    4. COMPLICATED syntax based on com. It takes like 200 lines of code, to theorize the possible existance of a container to hold a god damned triangle.
    5. Brought to you by the creaters of the buggiest software known to man.
    Sure. This isn't an unbiased comparison. Honest.

    If you don't like COM and Microsoft (which you apparently do not), maybe you should say that, as a way to provide full disclosure, before making a comparsion between a Microsoft technology and something else.

    [This message has been edited by Korval (edited 08-09-2002).]

  6. #6

    Re: Detailed OpenGL vs. DirectX Comparison

    "Hi, I'd like to find a detailed technical comparison between OpenGL and DirectX. It can be based on your personal experience as a programmer, or you can direct me to some related web address."

    DirectX works only on one type of operating system, OpenGL works everywhere. Period.

  7. #7
    Junior Member Regular Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    israel
    Posts
    246

    Re: Detailed OpenGL vs. DirectX Comparison

    i must say, that opengl might be portable, but your application itself is not, so i dont see what the big deal about the portabilty. anyway, directX is very simple once you get the hang of it, and D3DX is like a dream to a demo developer. while i do like some of opengl's way to implement stuff, directx is still convinient. and, with opengl's condition today, with all the shader stuff, its much better to use dx8, sorry, but thats my opinion. until ARB_Fragment_Shader or what ever comes out.
    -ofer-

  8. #8
    Senior Member OpenGL Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Bonn, Germany
    Posts
    1,633

    Re: Detailed OpenGL vs. DirectX Comparison

    I picked up a point from knackered and I think he's right:

    Pro Direct3D (or DX Graphics or whatever ...)

    Whenever there is some kind of new feature, the interface is exactly the same for all cards. PS 1.1 is PS 1.1 is PS 1.1. Okay, PS 1.4 is another matter, but it's not as bad as ATI_fragment_shader vs NV_register_combiners* and NV_texture_shader*. The common functionality works in exactly the same way.

    And I recently found a source of major gripe about OpenGL which almost made me port my whole damn project to D3D:
    In some areas, the level of abstraction for basic stuff is just overdone.
    You can't instruct your card to create a triple buffered rendering context. You can't reliably control swapping methods, because GL just lacks the proper definitions.
    That's a pro for D3D, because it can.

    I'm still doing OpenGL btw.

  9. #9
    Junior Member Regular Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    245

    Re: Detailed OpenGL vs. DirectX Comparison

    You can't instruct your card to create a triple buffered rendering context. You can't reliably control swapping methods, because GL just lacks the proper definitions.
    It's been said a million times, but I'll say it again: Setting up the buffering scheme and swapping buffers is NOT part of OpenGL. You must use platform-specific code or use GLUT etc. If you cannot do tripple buffering on Windows, this is because Microsoft chooses not to support it.

  10. #10
    Senior Member OpenGL Guru
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    3,576

    Re: Detailed OpenGL vs. DirectX Comparison

    It's been said a million times, but I'll say it again: Setting up the buffering scheme and swapping buffers is NOT part of OpenGL.
    Perhaps not currently, but it should be. You'd think a graphics library would handle something like this. If you went and wrote a software 3D graphics API, I'm certain that, as part of it, you would include such simple frambuffer controls. It makes since for OpenGL to handle this aspect of the graphics, because it controls this aspect of the graphics.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •