In the previous article we found out what graphics card suits best of all for work in 3D MAX application. However, it is not only the graphics card performance that tells on the fastness of your 3D MAX software, but also HDD, mainboard, CPU and even the operation system may exert some influence. If you can avoid having a hard disk drive slow down your system in 3D MAX by adding more RAM, then the mainboard and CPU as well as the OS you are working in may be of the same importance as the graphics card. That is why in this article we will consider the performance of different operation systems and platforms and try to find out the best hardware and software configuration for 3D MAX needs.

Choosing an operation system for 3D MAX today is not an easy task to fulfill. About a year ago there was no problem with it, since Windows 2000 wasn't born yet, the gaming graphics cards drivers (except the drivers for NVIDIA based ones) didn't allow working in 3D modeling applications under Windows 98, and the drivers for professional graphics cards were intended exclusively for Windows NT. And now you have to choose between the "gaming" Windows 98, merited Windows NT 4.0 and "relatively young" Windows 2000. Each of them has something to boast.

Windows NT 4.0 has initially been a system intended "for work only". The developers advise to use most 3D modeling applications particularly with this OS. Again, OpenGL drivers of the graphics cards intended "for work" are also optimized for this operation system. Besides, Windows NT 4.0 has been in the market for a considerable while already, much longer than all other systems discussed in this article. And it means that both: hardware and driver developers had a lot of time to optimize their products for this OS.

Windows 98 is regarded mostly as a "home" easy-to-use system. The first 3D MAX versions couldn't work in this OS correctly, because 3D MAX developers didn't take Windows 98 seriously. However, Windows 98 has one feature absent by Windows NT: DirectX support and hence the possibility to work in 3D MAX with the Direct3D driver instead of the OpenGL one.

Windows 2000 combines stability and reliability of Windows NT with the Direct3D support. But this operation system is still "too young", i.e. the drivers for Windows 2000 are not as well-optimized as those for other systems.

Last time we tested all our graphics cards under Windows NT. Since the possibility to work via Direct3D driver is the major difference of Windows NT from Windows 98 and Windows 2000, let's see if this feature is a true advantage or not.

We ran the tests on a typical scene over 6MB in size. It contained 40 thousand polygons, 6 light sources and a great lot of reflective surfaces.

Scene in Wireframe mode


Scene in Smooth + Highlights mode


Scene after the Final Rendering is complete

Direct3D Driver Performance

At first let's compare the Direct3D drivers of different graphics cards with one another and see if their fastness differs greatly. The testbed was configured as follows:

• Intel Pentium III 1000MHz CPU;
• ASUS CUSL2 mainboard;
• 2 x 128MB PC133 SDRAM NCP;
• 15GB IBM DTLA HDD 7200rpm;
• Graphics cards:
  • NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS (Creative 3D Blaster Annihilator 2 and ASUS AGP-V6600 Pure);
  • Matrox Millennium G450;
  • ATI RADEON 64MB DDR;
  • 3dfx Voodoo5 5500.

We used the following software:

• 3D Studio MAX 3.1;
• Windows 98 PE;
• Windows NT SP6 + DirectX8a;
• Windows 2000 SP1 + DirectX8a.

We installed all the operation systems one after another. In between, the HDD was formatted.

Here and further on in the article (as well as in the previous one) all the measurements were taken in fps, so the X-axis of all the graphs denotes the fps rate (if not stated differently).

NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS

As we can see, the GeForce2 GTS owners will hardly find working in 3D MAX with Direct3D driver a beneficial thing. The performance drop makes about 50% for all modes and in both OS. Since the results shown by one graphics card, even by the best one, do not give us any proper idea of the results we can squeeze out of other cards, let's pass over to Matrox Millennium G450 to find out more.

Matrox Millennium G450

Although in Wireframe mode the performance drops nearly twice, in Smooth + Highlights it triples! Since Smooth + Highlights appears absolutely unsuitable for work because of extremely low speed, the increase in Direct3D could give Matrox G450 some chance, if it were not for one "but": in Windows 98 the fps rate is very unstable, which makes you feel somewhat uncomfortable.

ATI RADEON 64MB DDR

The situation here repeats that we have just seen with GeForce2 GTS. We can hardly profit from the use of Direct3D because the performance drops twice here.

3dfx Voodoo5 5500

Having run the tests for all graphics cards we can see that Direct3D driver appears advantageous (which also can be argued about) only for Matrox Millennium G450 only in Smooth + Highlights mode (and Smooth only accordingly). All other graphics cards in all modes and under all operation systems showed that Direct3D driver slows down the performance quite tangibly.

Now that we have already considered the fastness of Direct3D driver, let's see what we can get in terms of image quality.

Viewports Image Quality Provided by Direct3D Drivers

Let's discuss the positive outcome in the first place. As we found out, Direct3D drivers of the graphics cards most likely create texture miniatures in the viewports with the color depth set in the desktop properties:

16bit Color Depth

Click on the screenshot to enlarge. In the right part of the image you can clearly notice the dithering effect.

32bit Color Depth

In 32bit color mode there is no dithering any more.

Now let's take a look at OpenGL:

256 colors in OpenGL

We've got the impression that OpenGL driver created miniatures in 256 colors. So, it is the indisputable advantage of Direct3D. But it is the first and the last advantage we managed to discover. Now we are passing over to drawbacks.

We revealed two major drawbacks of Direct3D drivers when displaying the viewports. The first one is the absence of textures correction.

Direct3D

Looks awful, don't you think so? Most boards are crooked.

And now take a look at the "correct" viewports rendering by OpenGL driver:

OpenGL

Here the things are alright, as you see. Since you can't see the textures laid the right way, it appears impossible to work in Smooth and Smooth + Highlights modes. So, no work connected with laying textures can be done in this case. But this is far not the end. In Direct3D most transparent surfaces are displayed as non-transparent. At first comes the scene as it should be seen:

Correct Rendering by OpenGL driver

There is a table in the middle lit by a light cone. For this "light cone" the designer use a geometric cone with the set transparency level of its sides. OpenGL driver displays this transparency correctly that's why we can see the candles and the table through this cone. And now here is the same scene displayed by Direct3D driver:

Incorrect Rendering by Direct3D driver

Well, instead of the light cone we see some kind of wall, which appeared because Direct3D driver turned out unable to display transparent surfaces correctly.

But this is also not the end. This driver also can't display the objects lit by multiple light sources. Here you are:

OpenGL:

Correct Lighting in OpenGL

Direct3D:

Incorrect Lighting in Direct3D

So, despite some quite doubtful advantages, Direct3D driver features a couple of really serious drawbacks, which make it impossible to work fruitfully. And taking into account that OpenGL drivers are considerably faster, we don't see any sense in working with 3D MAX via contemporary Direct3D drivers. Before we pass over to testing different graphics cards in different operation systems, we suggest that you should read the benchmarks description, if you haven't read our previous article "Contemporary Graphics Accelerators Tested in 3D MAX", where we have already discussed these benchmarks in detail.