Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Windows 8 Outperforming Ubuntu Linux With Intel OpenGL Graphics

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

  • #76
    I'm all about performance benchmarks between systems and so forth but was this really needed. If you look at something similar here. That article already pointed out that depending on the driver/hardware combo you have each desktop environment will give you different results for games. I'm not going to bother finding the other articles that have already benchmarked different desktop environments against Intel. It just seems like this topic is beating a dead horse.

    I'm happy that we continue to get benchmarks with newer driver updates but we all know it's going to be awhile before Intel Linux drivers are on par to Windows. Looking at what Intel has done I wouldn't be surprised if if they only continue to focus on improvements for the latest hardware wanyways.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
      You're lying or you connect to Internet from a Linux box. Viruses won't run on Linux as easy as on winblows. On winblows it's enough to connect.
      That hasn't been true since Windows started running a firewall by default. I believe that was XP SP2.

      Comment


      • #78
        Proprietary Intel OpenGL driver Outperforming open-source Intel OpenGL driver

        In my opinion, the title would be changed to "proprietary Intel OpenGL driver Outperforming open-source Intel OpenGL driver" because it can lead to confusion, specially among non-linux users who know little about the existence of both proprietary and open-source drivers.

        This is not specific of Intel. You could just select two linux distros use the proprietary AMD/ATI driver on one and the open-source AMD/ATI driver on the other and the distro with the proprietary driver will outperform the other on 3D. You could even repeat this using the same distro for both drivers and one of them will be faster, but the conclusion is not that the distro is outperforming itself.
        Last edited by juanrga; 03-22-2013, 09:25 PM.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by startzz View Post
          I'm using windows without antivirus for more than 5 years now, and never saw any virus... ?
          Virus do not say you "hello I am here" when booting. That is why antivirus search for virus. Moreover, having an antivirus installed on your Windows is not guarantee that your system is free of them, specially when the antivirus is not up to date.

          Originally posted by startzz View Post
          There is no point in runing only benchmarks, i know, its sad, that all you can do in linux is watching benchmarks, but in windows we have actual games
          Yeah, there is thousands of thousands great games for windows, i cant write all of them here, but you got the idea, none of them are available for linux.
          People uses linux for all kind of serious stuff, including running the 99% of worldwide servers and supercomputers. And yes, people also uses linux for gaming: native games, PlayOnLinux, wine...

          Past year, game developers have labelled windows 8 with words such as "catastrophe", "schizophrenic", "obnoxious", and nightmare" and are turning to linux as game platform. Steam already includes several ports of Windows games to linux.

          Oh and people has been playing Call of Duty Black Ops on linux for years...

          Originally posted by startzz View Post
          Yeah, AOL still looks better than any shitty linux DE, plus win8 only has idea of AOL, its looks are very very very good, with best graphics, every element matches other elements, and everything works perfect, so shame on you, buy glasses... Thats one of the big problems of linux, all DEs looks so terrible, and themes for it looks even more horrible, developers must have been very hiiiiiiigh when they made it
          [/quote]

          Actually the most beautiful themes and desktops found in online galleries are those using some linux distro. And they have customization possibilities that windows users cannot even dream...

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by juanrga View Post
            In my opinion, the title would be changed to "proprietary Intel OpenGL driver Outperforming open-source Intel OpenGL driver" because it can lead to confusion, specially among non-linux users who know little about the existence of both proprietary and open-source drivers.

            This is not specific of Intel. You could just select two linux distros use the proprietary AMD/ATI driver on one and the open-source AMD/ATI driver on the other and the distro with the proprietary driver will outperform the other on 3D. You could even repeat this using the same distro for both drivers and one of them will be faster, but the conclusion is not that the distro is outperforming itself.
            That's true, but hey! Phoronix FUDs as usual.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
              That's true, but hey! Phoronix FUDs as usual.
              I am completely new and don't know but I have just checked that the false conclusion that windows 8 is faster is being spread there out with news/blogs reporting phoronix 'findings'.

              Comment


              • #82
                Well I have a i5+hd4000 laptop and I do not miss windows 8 bloated UI at all. But it has been know that Intel's driver for windows performs better. The gap as been closing steadily but isn't there yet... The open source Intel driver is alright as it stands, its plays CS:S and DoD:S fine (with a work~around) and it has played good with Wine. It isn't my 1100t+670GTX with Nvidia's BLOB but the OSS driver does the job fine for my little 12 inch.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Rexilion View Post
                  I find that really hard to believe. If Intel is already developing drivers for their hardware, aren't they already giving away all the details?
                  The "cheating" is a bit different (and I don't know that Intel has ever been found to do it, though both AMD and NVIDIA have). The cheating is that the drivers can detect popular benchmarks or games and make changes to the rendered scene to improve performance.

                  A famous example is when one driver cheated hard at LightsMark and did some special culling of the submitted geometry. Users who modified the benchmark found that if you turned the camera around while using said driver, you'd see broken geometry. On other drivers, you'd see the bits of the scene you'd expect.

                  This is a popular tactic for both common benchmarks and newer games. It lets the driver authors publish much higher benchmark numbers for a stock configuration of the application, tricking users into buying their hardware/driver despite the fact that it is no faster in the general case or on app configurations they didn't cheat at, or that games might break if the user does something out of the ordinary on a cheated configuration.

                  That's unlikely in FOSS drivers because all that code is a huge maintenance burden that only helps in marketing products, something that FOSS projects are not generally interested in. Also, spilling the beans on why a particular benchmark is so good kind of defeats the purpose of cheating at the benchmark in the first place.

                  Again, there's no evidence I know of that Intel's Windows drivers are guilty of this at all.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by elanthis View Post
                    The "cheating" is a bit different (and I don't know that Intel has ever been found to do it, though both AMD and NVIDIA have). The cheating is that the drivers can detect popular benchmarks or games and make changes to the rendered scene to improve performance.

                    A famous example is when one driver cheated hard at LightsMark and did some special culling of the submitted geometry. Users who modified the benchmark found that if you turned the camera around while using said driver, you'd see broken geometry. On other drivers, you'd see the bits of the scene you'd expect.

                    This is a popular tactic for both common benchmarks and newer games. It lets the driver authors publish much higher benchmark numbers for a stock configuration of the application, tricking users into buying their hardware/driver despite the fact that it is no faster in the general case or on app configurations they didn't cheat at, or that games might break if the user does something out of the ordinary on a cheated configuration.

                    That's unlikely in FOSS drivers because all that code is a huge maintenance burden that only helps in marketing products, something that FOSS projects are not generally interested in. Also, spilling the beans on why a particular benchmark is so good kind of defeats the purpose of cheating at the benchmark in the first place.

                    Again, there's no evidence I know of that Intel's Windows drivers are guilty of this at all.
                    This is very interesting info for me! Could you provide some link to the LightsMark broken geometry issue? Thanks

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Would the AF quality count as cheating?

                      Earlier Intel Windows drivers had terrible AF quality, but with driver tweaks they got it to filter properly (and slower). So either a real oversight, or attempted cheat that was removed when detected.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        ...

                        The title of this disgusting brown nosing article is very misleading. It should be "Windows 8 CLOSED SOUCE DRIVERS perform better than LINUX OPEN SOURCE DRIVERS, but Linux CLOSED SOURCE DRIVERS PERFORM THE SAME AS WINDOWS 8 DRIVERS with OpenGL" That should be the title, clueless shill. BTW, Valve games run much better for me than on my wife's shitty Windows 8 computer.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by flooby View Post
                          The title of this disgusting brown nosing article is very misleading. It should be "Windows 8 CLOSED SOUCE DRIVERS perform better than LINUX OPEN SOURCE DRIVERS, but Linux CLOSED SOURCE DRIVERS PERFORM THE SAME AS WINDOWS 8 DRIVERS with OpenGL" That should be the title, clueless shill. BTW, Valve games run much better for me than on my wife's shitty Windows 8 computer.
                          That remark is
                          a) insulting beyond bounds
                          b) suggests adjustment to the title for nuance

                          There is no reason to adjust the title. Windows GPU drivers are closed source. Linux GPU drivers are either open source or closed source. In the case of Intel, it's only open source. So there is no need to
                          a) insult the author of the article
                          b) suggest adjustment to the title

                          I hope you don't ever reproduce...

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Rexilion View Post
                            That remark is
                            a) insulting beyond bounds
                            b) suggests adjustment to the title for nuance

                            There is no reason to adjust the title. Windows GPU drivers are closed source. Linux GPU drivers are either open source or closed source. In the case of Intel, it's only open source. So there is no need to
                            a) insult the author of the article
                            b) suggest adjustment to the title

                            I hope you don't ever reproduce...

                            +1

                            Lots of people do not like data so they want to degrade its importance.

                            You CAN compare OpenGL perf just on one gpu :P

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by elanthis View Post
                              The "cheating" is a bit different (and I don't know that Intel has ever been found to do it, though both AMD and NVIDIA have). The cheating is that the drivers can detect popular benchmarks or games and make changes to the rendered scene to improve performance.

                              A famous example is when one driver cheated hard at LightsMark and did some special culling of the submitted geometry. Users who modified the benchmark found that if you turned the camera around while using said driver, you'd see broken geometry. On other drivers, you'd see the bits of the scene you'd expect.

                              This is a popular tactic for both common benchmarks and newer games. It lets the driver authors publish much higher benchmark numbers for a stock configuration of the application, tricking users into buying their hardware/driver despite the fact that it is no faster in the general case or on app configurations they didn't cheat at, or that games might break if the user does something out of the ordinary on a cheated configuration.

                              That's unlikely in FOSS drivers because all that code is a huge maintenance burden that only helps in marketing products, something that FOSS projects are not generally interested in. Also, spilling the beans on why a particular benchmark is so good kind of defeats the purpose of cheating at the benchmark in the first place.

                              Again, there's no evidence I know of that Intel's Windows drivers are guilty of this at all.

                              I'm really glad that someone understands. Games and benchmarks speak to the driver, not directly to the hardware. If the driver wants to cheat will cheat, there is not technology available to measure quality of the picture. In fact when you have 2x GPUs you only have +50% FPS, that's is because the driver goes in quality and precision mode, same with double the shaders. My opinion is this:

                              NV-Kepler= 3.2_Tflops@64bit_(Intel comparison) = 6.4@32bit_(AMD comparison) = 9.6@Fmac=trioperant_(AMD HD2000-6000, G80-300, PS3, XBOX360 comparison).

                              AMD-HD7000= 3.8_Tflops@32bit = 5.7@Fmac=trioperant.

                              Intel-4000= 170_Gflops@64bit = 340@32bit =510@Fmac=trioperant.

                              Also there is not an exact way to compare open source drivers with the closed ones, because the closed ones cheat. If you ask me Intels_open and Intels_closed are equals. Also they share the same OpenGL code. How the hell some of you figure out that are different? Make your brain think!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by artivision View Post
                                I'm really glad that someone understands. Games and benchmarks speak to the driver, not directly to the hardware. If the driver wants to cheat will cheat, there is not technology available to measure quality of the picture. In fact when you have 2x GPUs you only have +50% FPS, that's is because the driver goes in quality and precision mode, same with double the shaders.
                                The title of the article mentioned testing the drivers. Not the cards. So what's the point?

                                Furthermore, FPS is only a single (one of many) ratio's defining 'performance'. So an 50% increase in FPS will not increase performance with 50%.

                                Originally posted by artivision View Post
                                My opinion is this:

                                NV-Kepler= 3.2_Tflops@64bit_(Intel comparison) = 6.4@32bit_(AMD comparison) = 9.6@Fmac=trioperant_(AMD HD2000-6000, G80-300, PS3, XBOX360 comparison).

                                AMD-HD7000= 3.8_Tflops@32bit = 5.7@Fmac=trioperant.

                                Intel-4000= 170_Gflops@64bit = 340@32bit =510@Fmac=trioperant.
                                I have no idea what this is about.

                                Originally posted by artivision View Post
                                Also there is not an exact way to compare open source drivers with the closed ones, because the closed ones cheat.
                                The fact that closed source drivers does not make them cheat by definition.

                                Originally posted by artivision View Post
                                If you ask me Intels_open and Intels_closed are equals. Also they share the same OpenGL code.
                                First you assert that closed source drivers cheat, and now you say that in the case of Intel they don't because they share some code for rendering.

                                I don't think that the DRM intel driver part is shared with Windows.

                                Originally posted by artivision View Post
                                How the hell some of you figure out that are different? Make your brain think!
                                I just did, and you speak nonsense.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X