I think Jim gave a very accurate portrayal of the current Video card
situation with Java 3D. ATI certainly has been poor. NVidia has been
great (GeForce 256 is solidly twice the speed of a Voodoo 3). 3dfx's
Voodoo's have serious driver problems. Matrox does ok but they can't
match the speed of NVidia's GeForce chipset.
- John Wright
Starfire Research
Jim Schatzman wrote:
>
> Re. Java3D performance:
>
> This is a popular topic. If the major journals weren't terrified of printing
>benchmarks,
> the answers to these questions would be more widely understood. As it is, you have
> to go to www.tomshardware.com or the gaming websites to see meaningful cross-
> vendor comparisons.
>
> Basically, the performance of the various graphics accelerator cards for 3D
> and Java3D in particular varies enormously depending on platform. For the OpenGL
> mplementation of Java3D, I would say that NVidia has the best OpenGL
> support today (that includes Creative, Hercules, Guillemot, Elsa, and other
> brands of video boards using NVidia processors). Some Diamond cards also
> perform very well, also, such as the Fire GL1. 3Dfx cards
> may be fantastic for DirectX but they are largely useless for OpenGL (due to an
>incomplete
> OpenGL ICD). If you can use the DirectX version of Java3D they may be fine.
>
> The older ATI Rage Pro processors are pretty worthless for Java3D. There seems to be
> controversy over the ATI Rage 128. I tried out several ATI XPert 128 cards about a
>year
> ago and could not get them to work properly with Java3D at all. Bad colors,
>incomplete
> rendering and poor performance are what I saw. Some other people have reported good
> performance recently with other ATI cards using the ATI Rage 128 processor.
> It would appear that ATI may have improved their OpenGL support in recent months.
>
> Your 933 MHz PIII (I presume) should deliver fantastic performance when matched with
> a good video accelerator. For less than $150 you can buy one of the GeForce II MX
>cards
> which should work very well. If you need top performance spend $500 and buy a
>GeForce II Ultra
> card (if you can find one!). The Ultra uses 4 to 4.5 ns DDR memory!!!
>
> No - I do not get kickbacks from NVidia. I have just had to try to make Java3D work
>on
> numerous operating systems (all versions of Windows and Solaris) with about 10
>different
> video accelerators. There can be a 30-to-1 difference in Java3D performance
>depending on
> the platform and video card. On some platforms, some Java3D applications do not seem
>to
> work at all at any speed. NVidia processors seem (TODAY) to deliver maximum
>performance
> with minimum hassle. That's my opinion and I do have Java3D benchmarks to backup my
> claims about speed! Check out tomshardware for other benchmarks (unfortunately, they
>do not
> post Java3D tests but they do post a lot of OpenGL benchmarks).
>
> Jim Schatzman
>
> At 12:00 PM 9/14/2000 -0500, Shaun Shepherd wrote:
> >I'm trying to run a simulation that loads in an object and translates it along a
>path(via setTranslation). The current fps is 3.5 and I know my computer can do
>better than that. I have a 933mhz with ATI Rage 128 Pro. I really have no idea on
>how to up the frame rate. I get the feeling that my java3d is not taking advantage
>of the graphics card, but I don't know how to remedy that. Does anyone have any
>suggestions? Thanks.
> >
> >
> Shaun
>
> ===========================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
> of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
