Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel OpenGL Performance: OS X vs. Windows vs. Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Intel OpenGL Performance: OS X vs. Windows vs. Linux

    Phoronix: Intel OpenGL Performance: OS X vs. Windows vs. Linux

    As mentioned last week when publishing the OS X 10.8 vs. Ubuntu Linux benchmarks, a large Intel OpenGL driver performance comparison was being carried out at Phoronix. The comparison is now compete and here are the results when comparing the Intel HD OpenGL graphics performance under Apple OS X 10.8, Microsoft Windows 7 Pro, and Ubuntu Linux 12.04/12.10. The results of this Intel OpenGL gaming performance comparison are quite interesting, but reveal some troubling Linux facts.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17818

  • #2
    OSS-driver Team son of a lesser god even in intel?

    So far for the many praises on Intel about their friendliness on open source.
    They have the tech and SW know-how to make their HW go 50% faster and openGL 4.0 compliant, but they use it only on Windows...

    Maybe I'm a little bit harsh, and Ok, great job to the OTC, but just like for AMD: couldn't the OSS-driver team be helped internally more?
    IP to defend? on AMD side maybe, but come on, on HD3000....

    Anyway, it slowly and constantly progresses. At least there's a hope , unlike the perspectives on future we had 5 years ago.
    And the collaboration with Valve should pay
    Netrunner Linux - Rolling Release ; Nexus 5 ROM Chroma 5.1 ; NAS 6TB on FreeNAS

    Comment


    • #3
      wow linux driver is faster than i thought.

      Comment


      • #4
        Ok, intel can run some engines which are 10y old but it would be much better when it could run idtech 5 (even when done via wine). But thats not the case. Tests would be more interesting with hd 4000 however, then you could at least compare heaven.

        Comment


        • #5
          With all the money Apple has I thought their drivers will completely obliterate everything. It appears that their drivers are not perfect at all (compared to Win7), and often are slower than Linux.

          Comment


          • #6
            I remember reading about 'Link-Time Optimising' when compiling the Linux kernel. I know it's not fully ready yet but might that in the future increase performance when it comes to OpenGL?

            Comment


            • #7
              Windows 7 did perform the best overall but I wouldn't say it destroyed linux. Overall I saw a pretty health balance between all 3 OSes, if you choose the highest-performing Ubuntu tests. Each OS had its strengths, which I personally found weird considering how many of these games are based on the same engine.

              Comment


              • #8
                This could actually be viewed as a win for linux. While we still can't compete against the windows graphics stack, I feel that we have surpassed OS X - at least with the intel driver. For many of the benchmarks, we tie or surpass the OS X performance. There are a few cases where linux does quite a bit worse (Xonotic, high resolution issue, but linux handles high quality better... interesting).

                The fact of the matter is that OS X is optimized for a specific piece of hardware whereas a distribution like Ubuntu strives to be as generic as possible so that it will work on a wide range of hardware. Maybe, if you completely optimized the linux operating system and graphic stack for a specific set of hardware, than these number would be different. How different, I don't know (though I'll try and find out - at least for my hardware).

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Spectre View Post
                  I remember reading about 'Link-Time Optimising' when compiling the Linux kernel. I know it's not fully ready yet but might that in the future increase performance when it comes to OpenGL?
                  No Intel GPU is CPU limited in anything more than the old OA. So no, LTO won't likely have much effect on intel fps.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TeoLinuX View Post
                    So far for the many praises on Intel about their friendliness on open source.
                    They have the tech and SW know-how to make their HW go 50% faster and openGL 4.0 compliant, but they use it only on Windows...

                    Maybe I'm a little bit harsh, and Ok, great job to the OTC, but just like for AMD: couldn't the OSS-driver team be helped internally more?
                    IP to defend? on AMD side maybe, but come on, on HD3000....

                    Anyway, it slowly and constantly progresses. At least there's a hope , unlike the perspectives on future we had 5 years ago.
                    And the collaboration with Valve should pay
                    Playing devils advocate: Why the automatic assumption its the driver that's at fault? I mean, theres a LOT of drivers out there with reduced functionality compared to their Windows counterparts. Maybe the issue is less with the driver writers and more with the host OS?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Confused. Why doesn't Intel have a unified driver that's pretty much the same across all systems? They actually have different teams working on different drivers? WTF?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        As another thought, I remember from previous tests that Linux usually performed worse than Mac and Windows at higher resolutions but sometimes came out on the top on lower resolutions. Linux also seems to perform worse on widescreen than 4:3. On the other hand, Mac tended to have the opposite results. I know its very time consuming and probably tedious for Michael to test so many screen resolutions but the results have proven to be apparent.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by johnc View Post
                          Confused. Why doesn't Intel have a unified driver that's pretty much the same across all systems? They actually have different teams working on different drivers? WTF?
                          Because the Linux stack is based on the in-kernel DRM and Mesa, and others aren't?

                          Intel is doing the Right Thing here.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                            Because the Linux stack is based on the in-kernel DRM and Mesa, and others aren't?

                            Intel is doing the Right Thing here.
                            But why would that matter? They can use the Linux infrastructure while keeping the core driver stuff the same. Unless they insist that the Windows version be closed source -- which makes no sense since it's 100% open on the Linux side.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I don't know if opening up their Windows driver and completely bypassing Mesa and parts of the kernel and X.org would be a better way to go, especially considering that Intel has been one of the primary drivers behind all recent developments: GLSL compiler, DRI2/GEM/KMS. AMD didn't go that way either.

                              Intel does not go for the high-performance, "every-frame-counts" crowd, so it probably makes more sense to share much of infrastructure maintenance and work with the likes of AMD, RedHat, VMWare and the like, instead of maintaining their own port of the Windows driver and updating it all the time to keep up with the kernel and X, like Nvidia is doing with their blob.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X