Catalyst On Ubuntu 14.04 Linux Competes Well With Windows 8.1

[curaga]

In the trace of PA I have, it used almost 18GB of VRAM (max settings, so uncompressed textures likely)

Perhaps as your army size increases, you run out of VRAM and start the pingpong dance. If so, Catalyst doesn't seem to handle it any good either.

[VanCoding]

I don't think anyone will try telling you that AMD's GL code is anywhere close to their support for Direct3D, and that doesn't have anything to do with being windows or linux, it's just the API where they have focused work on in their driver.

---

Ah, I see. But the strange thing is, why would they focus D3D on Windows and OpenGL on Linux, why don't they just use OpenGL on all platforms?
Is this because the OpenGL drivers are slower in general, no matter on what platform?

That would be interesting, because as far as I know, they should be faster. I've read somewhere that OpenGL works more like the graphics cards actually work then D3D, so theoretically it should be faster.
Do you think MS is just forcing/pushing them to make better D3D drivers then OpenGL?

[smitty3268]

Ah, I see. But the strange thing is, why would they focus D3D on Windows and OpenGL on Linux, why don't they just use OpenGL on all platforms?
Is this because the OpenGL drivers are slower in general, no matter on what platform?

That would be interesting, because as far as I know, they should be faster. I've read somewhere that OpenGL works more like the graphics cards actually work then D3D, so theoretically it should be faster.
Do you think MS is just forcing/pushing them to make better D3D drivers then OpenGL?

No, you misunderstand.

ATI was focusing on Windows/D3D ONLY. They considered OpenGL dead, and Linux something to ignore.

For a while, when OpenGL was stuck at 2.x, they weren't entirely wrong. The only mainstream applications using them were Id games, and even Id eventually moved to Direct3D. I think they only reason they even maintained GL and linux was support for old CAD programs and the like.

The reasons OpenGL nearly died are many and varied. But Direct3D really was far superior, and that's why most developers with a choice gave up on compatibility and used it anyway.

Right now, judging by the fact some of the GL tests are passing on linux and failing on windows, it's obvious they are starting to focus on the Linux + GL stack at least a little, no doubt due to Valve and Steam, but they've got a long way to go before they can claim that it's in good shape.

[bridgman]

I've read somewhere that OpenGL works more like the graphics cards actually work then D3D, so theoretically it should be faster.

GPUs used to be designed around OpenGL back in the late '90s. Then they were designed around D3D for a while, until OpenGL came back to life. These days they're mostly generic blocks (SIMD cores, texture caches/filters, CBs/DBs aka ROPs etc..) with front ends designed to handle the nuances of both.

In other words they are "designed around OpenGL" or "designed around D3D" depending on what the person answering thinks you want to hear