Hi. Es klingt komisch, aber es ist wirklich so. Zitat aus der DirectX-Dokumentation (wichtige Stellen hervorgehoben):
Nearly all 3-D accelerators on the market support z-buffering, making z-buffers the most common type of depth buffer today. However ubiquitous, z-buffers have their drawbacks. Due to the mathematics involved, the generated z values in a z-buffer tend not to be distributed evenly across the z-buffer range (typically 0.0 to 1.0, inclusive). Specifically, the ratio between the far and near clipping planes strongly affects how unevenly z values are distributed. Using a far-plane distance to near-plane distance ratio of 100, 90% of the depth buffer range is spent on the first 10% of the scene depth range. Typical applications for entertainment or visual simulations with exterior scenes often require far-plane/near-plane ratios of anywhere between 1000 to 10000. At a ratio of 1000, 98% of the range is spent on the 1st 2% of the depth range, and the distribution becomes worse with higher ratios. This can cause hidden surface artifacts in distant objects, especially when using 16-bit depth buffers, the most commonly supported bit-depth.
A w-based depth buffer, on the other hand, is often more evenly distributed between the near and far clip planes than a z-buffer. The key benefit is that the ratio of distances for the far and near clipping planes is no longer an issue. This allows applications to support large maximum ranges, while still getting relatively accurate depth buffering close to the eye point. A w-based depth buffer isn't perfect, and can sometimes exhibit hidden surface artifacts for near objects. Another drawback to the w-buffered approach is related to hardware support: w-buffering isn't supported as widely in hardware as z-buffering.