« on: May 24, 2014, 03:51:13 PM »
Vendor A has “the most capable GL devs in the industry and the best testing process.” It focuses on OpenGL implementations that work rather than on spec purity. It’s sexy. It’s fun. It’s also the vendor that’s pushing OpenGL as an alternative to Mantle or D3D12.
...this vendor (vendor A) will do things like internally replace entire shaders for key titles to make them perform better (sometimes much better). Most drivers probably do stuff like this occasionally, but this vendor will stop at nothing for performance.
Next up, Vendor B. Vendor B knows the OpenGL spec inside and out and focuses on implementing OpenGL correctly. Unfortunately, Vendor B is characterized as being “a complete hodgepodge, inconsistent performance, very buggy, inconsistent regression testing [and] dysfunctional driver threading…
And Vendor C? Vendor C has two major driver development teams, but doesn’t focus on graphics and is years behind Vendors A and B in implementing basic OpenGL features. It leads the way in open source graphics drivers, and has (mostly) public hardware specs. One driver is years behind but mostly stable as long as you don’t care about performance or features, while the other team’s driver is “a complete disaster…
Vendor A = NVIDIA
Vendor B = AMD
Vendor C = Intel
Complete story: http://richg42.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-truth-on-opengl-driver-quality.html