Do you have any benchmark comparisons to support this claim? All I can find in searching are random threads of people saying this, but nobody providing any actual evidence or comparisons.
The few games using OpenGL on Windows I can find show AMD's performance being perfectly competent:
The nvidia cards were on average a bit faster, but that was true in DX as well. Meaning it wasn't just "lol amd opengl drivers"
And of course Linux testing, where OpenGL is far more common, shows no major disparity, either, which you already know hence the qualifier of "on windows" but that qualifier makes no sense. It's going to be the bulk of the same code between windows & linux for the driver, as has also been rather well tested & verified.
Which gets back to "it's a goddamn 16 year old myth" that literally spawned out of Nvidia's hyper aggressive opengl optimization of Quake 3.
You're clearly confused as to the topic you're replying to. I responded with benchmarks to someone who said performance was bad. Stability was not the topic of discussion in this subthread.
The few games using OpenGL on Windows I can find show AMD's performance being perfectly competent:
https://www.pcgamer.com/doom-benchmarks-return-vulkan-vs-ope...
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2014/05/21/wolfenstein_new_o...
The nvidia cards were on average a bit faster, but that was true in DX as well. Meaning it wasn't just "lol amd opengl drivers"
And of course Linux testing, where OpenGL is far more common, shows no major disparity, either, which you already know hence the qualifier of "on windows" but that qualifier makes no sense. It's going to be the bulk of the same code between windows & linux for the driver, as has also been rather well tested & verified.
Which gets back to "it's a goddamn 16 year old myth" that literally spawned out of Nvidia's hyper aggressive opengl optimization of Quake 3.