问题
Some particle examples use THREE.BufferGeometry and others use a simply THREE.Geometry.
Some lines about pros and cons of every method?
回答1:
THREE.BufferGeometry is slowly replacing THREE.Geometry as it is computationally more efficient.
The THREE.BufferGeometry API may still be undergoing changes, so you have to be prepared for that.
The THREE.Geometry API is easier to use, perhaps, but that may be because it is more familiar.
Currently they are both supported.
Which one you use is up to you.
three.js r.67
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/23607780/three-js-buffergeometry-vs-geometry-for-particles