Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NVIDIA GT 425M: Windows 7 Ultimate vs. Ubuntu 10.10

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

  • NVIDIA GT 425M: Windows 7 Ultimate vs. Ubuntu 10.10

    Phoronix: NVIDIA GT 425M: Windows 7 Ultimate vs. Ubuntu 10.10

    Back in August we looked at the gaming performance between Windows 7 and Ubuntu 10.04 using a Lenovo ThinkPad W510, and the results were not too dramatic, but since then there has been a new release of Ubuntu (the 10.10 Maverick Meerkat) and new graphics hardware has been released. After receiving an ASRock Vision 3D system recently, which will soon be reviewed at Phoronix, we decided to compare its performance of the brand new GeForce GT 425M graphics processor under Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64 and Ubuntu 10.10 x86_64.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15389

  • #2
    Hi, if I'm not mistaken the 260.19.06 NVIDIA drivers are/were Beta?

    Why weren't the 260.19.12 drivers used?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by gmcclelland View Post
      Hi, if I'm not mistaken the 260.19.06 NVIDIA drivers are/were Beta?

      Why weren't the 260.19.12 drivers used?
      Ubuntu 10.10 installs 260.19.06 by default.

      Comment


      • #4
        Sorry, I just remembered using 260.19.06 beta drivers when using 10.04 that's all.

        I would assume little to no difference in performance between 260.19.06 and 260.19.12 then?

        Comment


        • #5
          Quake Live Tests

          Today Quake Live is the most played OpenGL Cross plattform Game.
          It can be played in Linux with Firefox, and in MS WOS with Firefox and MSIE.

          I think gamers would like to see benchmarks, not only between MS WOS 7 and Ubuntu, include ARCH, Gentoo, Sabayon, SUSE, and other popular distros. 32 and 64 bits.

          As hard gamers like to play in slower resolutions 640x480 and 800x600 because there are no dropped frames - and there are a lot in higher resolutions - Linuxes would beat a lot MS WOS 7 and perhaps a lot of gamers would install Linuxes for playing Quake Live and other online FPS games.

          In Spanish we say "Are you my friend or lion's one?" - ¿Eres amigo mio o de león? when your friend is not on your side.

          This same test, with Quake Live with Ubuntu beating MS WOS 7 in low res would have a espectaclar scope "UBUNTU READY FOR HARD GAMERS".

          And of course Quake Live has different configurations, the important ones for harD gamers are 640x480 and 800x600 with pro configs - minimal effects config - and also you can test medium and full features for each resolution. Perhaps pro configs would run also faster in higher resolutions in Linuxes than in MS WOS systems.

          I know a lot of Live Quake gamers that would change inmediately to any Linux distro if they read that is much faster than their MS WOS computers.

          And of course, they would like to download the tests for their own machines.

          Please do it, It will make me happy to make this hardgamers friends change to any Linux distro.

          The second question is How can MS WOS improve so much in higher resolutions?
          The method is dropping frames - a trick, not a real test - or what else?
          Then this test mudt have dropped frames and other triks usd by OSs to evaluate results.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by mitcoes View Post
            The second question is How can MS WOS improve so much in higher resolutions?
            The method is dropping frames - a trick, not a real test - or what else?
            Then this test mudt have dropped frames and other triks usd by OSs to evaluate results.
            Nothing new. Drivers are optimized for specific resolutions. In the past this was 1024x768. I suppose today it's higher.

            Btw, no, gamers don't use low resolutions. You're still stuck in the MS-DOS days.

            Also, Quake is hardly a reason for anyone to switch to Linux. Gamers want Fallout 3, F1 2010, the upcomming Dragon Age, etc, etc, not Quake Live that's just the ancient Quake 3 Arena but in a browser.

            Comment


            • #7
              Another useless comparison.

              Linux is not a gaming platform. At best it can be used to run Windows games under Wine, but in this case no valid and realistic comparisons can be carried out because Wine semi-accurately emulates DirectX calls using OpenGL.

              Unless Linux has at least 10% market share I highly doubt anything is going to change.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by mitcoes View Post
                Today Quake Live is the most played OpenGL Cross plattform Game.
                It can be played in Linux with Firefox, and in MS WOS with Firefox and MSIE.

                I think gamers would like to see benchmarks, not only between MS WOS 7 and Ubuntu, include ARCH, Gentoo, Sabayon, SUSE, and other popular distros. 32 and 64 bits.

                As hard gamers like to play in slower resolutions 640x480 and 800x600 because there are no dropped frames - and there are a lot in higher resolutions - Linuxes would beat a lot MS WOS 7 and perhaps a lot of gamers would install Linuxes for playing Quake Live and other online FPS games.

                In Spanish we say "Are you my friend or lion's one?" - ¿Eres amigo mio o de león? when your friend is not on your side.

                This same test, with Quake Live with Ubuntu beating MS WOS 7 in low res would have a espectaclar scope "UBUNTU READY FOR HARD GAMERS".

                And of course Quake Live has different configurations, the important ones for harD gamers are 640x480 and 800x600 with pro configs - minimal effects config - and also you can test medium and full features for each resolution. Perhaps pro configs would run also faster in higher resolutions in Linuxes than in MS WOS systems.

                I know a lot of Live Quake gamers that would change inmediately to any Linux distro if they read that is much faster than their MS WOS computers.

                And of course, they would like to download the tests for their own machines.

                Please do it, It will make me happy to make this hardgamers friends change to any Linux distro.

                The second question is How can MS WOS improve so much in higher resolutions?
                The method is dropping frames - a trick, not a real test - or what else?
                Then this test mudt have dropped frames and other triks usd by OSs to evaluate results.
                You forgot to mention that there is a 125 FPS cap. Combined with the fact that most people (including me) play with shitty resolutions + gfx settings comparable with a lego world + 10 years old engine, there is no need to improve anything performance wise.

                What i actually did to improve the game experience is to set usbhid.mousepoll=1 on kernel command line to force 1000hz polling of my mouse. Also poking around with net rmem / wmem min/max/default makes some difference in hit recognition. Although i have yet to find the "optimal" settings.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by birdie View Post
                  Another useless comparison.
                  Perhaps. I see less use in it than some.

                  Linux is not a gaming platform. At best it can be used to run Windows games under Wine, but in this case no valid and realistic comparisons can be carried out because Wine semi-accurately emulates DirectX calls using OpenGL.
                  Now, I'm hurt. The only reason it's "not a gaming platform" is solely because studios won't port games to it. The "fragmentation" argument is BS- and many problems for producing good binaries for all distributions and 32/64-bits are typically self-inflicted. WINE's a band-aid and should really only be used for things that won't get ported over. Old stuff. Mainly because of the very thing you comment to.

                  Unless Linux has at least 10% market share I highly doubt anything is going to change.
                  Heh... Hate to disillusion you there- but we're already at that threshold according to something Ballmer showed people this year. You can actually do the math yourself- but someone else has done it for you:

                  http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2010/09...he-1-myth.html

                  If you accept the figures that the industry pundits give on Netbooks, just for starters, the floor for shipped units using Linux (nobody will typically go out of their way to buy a Linux netbook and put Windows on it, sorry...) if you go off of the official shipped Netbook figures, is 6% of the total estimated market. That's the minimum and only using netbooks for a figure. The figure is quite a bit higher than that, obviously, because there's more than just netbooks out there.

                  You're AT the 10% figure you talk to- and there's some changes going on in the background that might change the story you're talking to.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
                    Now, I'm hurt. The only reason it's "not a gaming platform" is solely because studios won't port games to it.
                    Indeed. But as you say yourself, this means Linux is not a gaming platform The reason doesn't really matter to players.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It's a gaming platform if it has games. It has games, so therefore it's a gaming platform.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
                        The "fragmentation" argument is BS- and many problems for producing good binaries for all distributions and 32/64-bits are typically self-inflicted.
                        Where are the installers, because I haven't seen many and when I do find them they almost always have problems where I have to use the command line on them, something that should never have to be done anymore for Linux to be successful for desktop users.

                        Secondly, where are the tie-ins to the software managers? If I install OilRush using the installer for it, will I be able to easily remove it via my distro's manager? I.e. I hope that's something that is standardized...

                        As soon as software developers and companies don't have to make exceptions for specific distros in their software, THEN you'll be able to say that Linux fragmentation has been taken care of and that good standards have allowed successful interoperability.

                        As for now, ATI's proprietary driver is still horrible to install from their website and THAT is the main reason everyone sticks with the one from the repository and for that result in the Phoronix poll a while back, because they don't want to screw around with things all the time, and of course the desktop users who don't know how won't be able to any way.

                        Once I find that driver doesn't need to make exceptions for certain Linux distros, and there becomes no need to install "native packages" on a distro just to make sure the manager knows software EXISTS on a machine, because you have enough communication there that the manager knows what's up, THEN I'll consider those fragmentation problems solved and those cross-distro software installation standards to be good enough.

                        The distros don't seem to be actively caring about this problem, actively trying to do things which will help standards so that ISVs will be attracted to the Linux platform. Instead, the distros seem to only care about trying to have software only for THEIR distro, have it all go through THEM, they want to be the sole channel for access to software so that users are forced to go through them so they can take a cut. I'm all for "software stores", don't get me wrong, as long as I have a CHOICE of stores. I don't want that greed and those ideals to be in conflict with software accessibility freedom and Linux standards.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Netbooks? I'm honestly puzzled why anyone would make an argument about netbooks in a gaming-centered thread. The primary use for a netbook is light fare like surfing the web and reading email--it's not a gamer's platform.

                          Obviously some casual gaming takes place, but netbook purchasers aren't basing their decision to buy on the gaming experience that the device will deliver. More significantly, most purchasers of Linux netbooks during their surge in sales weren't buying Linux--they were buying an ultracheap portable computer.

                          That ties into another problem: the surge in netbook sales was largely an artifact of the economic downturn, particularly in 2009. That window of opportunity is closing, if not already gone. Basically, that means that Linux has already had its shot, under conditions that were about as favorable to it as possible. This is it, folks. This is the big win. And I'm inclined to agree with this article's take on the resulting market figures. Consider that it took the biggest economic upheaval in generations to create that opportunity and I think it's a valid question to wonder how long it will be before we see another.

                          Many developers have fully turned to consoles--curated, relatively low-piracy environments with guaranteed operating specifications all-around. Developing for the myriad hardware found on PCs introduces complications, which ultimately results in PC software sections in various retail stores being miniscule in comparison to the console selection. If it's even there at all (I'm looking at you, Gamestop). And that's with developers ignoring any version of Windows prior to XP. Complicating things further with dozens of Linux variants would create a support nightmare for a highly questionable return on investment. With development turnaround now taking years at a stretch, Graogrim's Game Studio wouldn't see much advantage to including Linux support in the box.

                          Now I'm not saying all of this to bash on Linux--I've got Ubuntu 10.10 on a secondary hard drive on my PC, a TiVo, and an Android smartphone--but this is the age of Call of Duty: Black Ops. And it strikes me that harping on benchmarks of games based on eleven-year-old technology on inappropriately low-end hardware isn't the way to push Linux as a gaming environment. It isn't inspiring. It's sad.

                          Trying to convince people who are accustomed to high def gaming that OpenArena plays great or that some cross-platform tech demo is wicked cool won't cut it. It's time for a different approach.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Remco View Post
                            It's a gaming platform if it has games. It has games, so therefore it's a gaming platform.
                            That's not a good definition of gaming platform. With that argument, my cheap cell phone is a gaming platform because it has games. Now that I think about it, my cell has more games than Linux. So does that make it a gaming platform, and a better one than Linux even?

                            Don't think so. A better definition of gaming platform would be any platform for which popular titles, in their full versions, are ported. "Popular" means stuff you find covered in places gamers hang around (gamespot.com for example). A quick look at those right now gives a list of current popular "top" games:

                            Medal of Honor
                            Starcraft 2
                            Fallout: New Vegas
                            FIFA Soccer 11
                            Civilization V

                            Which of those are available for Linux? AFAIK, none

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
                              Where are the installers, because I haven't seen many and when I do find them they almost always have problems where I have to use the command line on them, something that should never have to be done anymore for Linux to be successful for desktop users.
                              There are loads of games on most distro's repositories. Also, some more "advanced" games are distributed with a self-extracting shell script which only takes typing in the name of the file and pressing Return. If a user is too thick to do this he shouldn't be using linux or trying to play "advanced" games in the first place. Why is it that that argument of everything having to work with a single click on an icon always comes up?
                              Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
                              As soon as software developers and companies don't have to make exceptions for specific distros in their software, THEN you'll be able to say that Linux fragmentation has been taken care of and that good standards have allowed successful interoperability.
                              They can start distributing only the source code and letting distros manage the packages, OR they can offer that option and distribute it in the two most popular package formats. I can't imagine any company disregarding a linux port just because they have to make a .deb and a .rpm package.
                              Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
                              As for now, ATI's proprietary driver is still horrible to install from their website
                              Why? What's the problem? Kano even provides a great script that allows the instalation of fglrx on unsupported kernels.
                              Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
                              Instead, the distros seem to only care about trying to have software only for THEIR distro, have it all go through THEM, they want to be the sole channel for access to software so that users are forced to go through them so they can take a cut.
                              When you say "distros" you mean ubuntu right? And when you say "them" you mean canonical right? And even if you do what do you mean by this? Of course the distros are going to package software only for their distro (more or less).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X