Closed source API's like DirectX won't ever be as fast as an open source API standard like OpenGL.
This is why games like Left-4-Dead2 using OpenGL run substantially faster (More FPS) (http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/133824-valve-opengl-is-fas...)
This is why games like Left-4-Dead2 using OpenGL run substantially faster (More FPS) (http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/133824-valve-opengl-is-fas...)
It may be that the current example of open-source are faster than the current example of closed-source, and there may be very real advantages that the open-source approach brings about that pushes the status quo towards as you describe, but there's nothing mandating that. I'm not sure why you'd therefore assert that.
The assertion I was intending to make was that widely used open source applications tend to be analyzed and improved by a larger community and thus are more likely to be more steamlined/efficient ("faster" was also not a correct term here to describe efficient pipelines)
Although as someone stated further down, OpenGL is not actually open source, it's an open standard. So my original point is null and void as is.
I believe my hate for Microsoft had blinded me, forgive me.
Why are you comparing implementations and standards on a metric that's only application to implementations?