I guess my comparision isn't 100% valid but it is a bit. I'm comparing quake3 in
linux with mesa 3.3, and 3.2 with that of quake3 in windows with opengl. There
is the issue that I'm not using SSE in linux but this was still the case when I
was on my P2. The decrease in FPS could not be mesa but it's the most likely
case. I'm not a gaming cowboy either so I don't really care about "My FPS" but
it's good for testing mesa. Games have always pushed the standards.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> mitch writes:
> >I think that the good parts of Opengl should be merged to the bad parts
> >of mesa. Also, is there anyway to squeeze some more speed out of mesa?
> >It seems that mesa is a good 8 to 10 FPS slower than Opengl with most
> >apps and is much slower for low resolutions.
>
> Exactly which implementations are you comparing here? Mesa-3.1 vs. MS's
> OpenGL that comes with Windows? Or with SGI's sample implementation?
> On what platform?
>
> Dave
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Konerding WWW: http://picasso.ucsf.edu/~dek
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
--
Mitch Allmond
Georgia Institute of Technology, Physics & Computer Science major
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
lca13.eastnet.gatech.edu
"God does not play dice, but I do"
_______________________________________________
Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
