🚀 go-pugleaf

I am sorry for dragging this discussion back from the technical and into
the inflamatory but I have reached the end of my patience. Read on.

FLAME ON

I, for one, am getting tried of all this discussion about who will be faster,
OpenGL vs. PEX. NCGA has spent a number of years developing a picture level
benchmark (PLB) for resolving these kinds of arguments. Both DEC and Evans &
Sutherland have faithfully reported their PEX performance numbers for all
five benchmarks over the past two years. Other vendors have reported their
benchmarks for PHIGS and their proprietary API's. 

But where is SGI?? For a company that has marketed themselves as the leader
in 3D graphics performance they are conspicuously absent. Not only do they
report performance numbers for only one out of the five benchmarks, they 
only give those numbers for their highest-end grahics accelerators.

And PLEEASSE!! No more complaining that the benchmarks are baised in favor of
PHIGS. We don't hear these complaints from IBM (who reports GL numbers) or HP
(who reports Starbase numbers). One can, after all, report both their PLB 
literal numbers AND their PLB optimized numbers.

SGI is a large profitable organization that clearly has the resources to 
generate PLB benchmark numbers. I suspect strongly that the only reason they
are not published is that they are not very good.

So SGI, if GL is so great where are your benchmark numbers? Where are your
Indigo numbers? Heck :-), for that matter, where are your OpenGL PLB
benchmark numbers?

As my mother always said, "The proof of the puddling is in the eating."

The ball is your court!


Richard Pimentel

P.S. I speak only for myself without my company's consent or knowledge.