Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How Valve Made L4D2 Faster On Linux Than Windows

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Filiprino View Post
    There's only two systems using Direct3D: Xbox and Windows. Everyone else is using OpenGL or an equivalent (Sony, Nintendo, AMD, NVIDIA, Intel, Apple, Google ...)

    For the love of... SONY AND NINTENDO DO NOT USE OPENGL!! At all, period. There is a _proprietary_ heavily-modified "kinda sorta" GL|ES wrapper library for PS3 which essentially nobody uses because making proper use of the PS3 does not fit into the D3D/GL API models. Nintendo has never released any hardware that supports shaders (the Wii U will be their first when it comes out later this year) and their past hardware instead relies on a TEV unit, and also has other various very weird and different hardware behavior that does not at all fit into the D3D/GL model, and they also use a proprietary custom API.

    NVIDIA, AMD, and Intel all produce Direct3D drivers last I checked. They don't "use OpenGL" any more than they use Direct3D.

    Google also does not solely use OpenGL as you think. Chrome on Windows exclusively uses Direct3D, despite having an entire OpenGL layer. They went out of their way to engineer ANGLE specifically to solve the massive real-world problems with OpenGL driver quality from the fine, fine folks at NVIDIA, AMD, and Intel.

    That leaves Apple as the only company in your list that are solely consuming OpenGL and not Direct3D. That alone does not mean anything, of course, but don't go around claiming that somehow it's only Microsoft -- and not practically the entire industry -- that uses Direct3D.

    Especially when it comes to things like gaming and consumer devices, of which Microsoft's platforms still makes up a majority, with Apple and Google picking up the brunt of the weight in the low-end mobile space.

    Comment


    • #17
      bizarre misinterpretation

      Google also does not solely use OpenGL as you think.
      Your entire rant revolves around your use of the word "solely" when it was not implied AT ALL by the message you're responding to.

      The implication of the original message is: "There are people out there who code to OpenGL" and you've twisted it around so you have a vague pretense for your inflammatory and useless rant.

      There is a _proprietary_ heavily-modified "kinda sorta" GL|ES wrapper library for PS3
      Holy Guacamole, Batman, that's EXACTLY what the original poster said!
      Last edited by frantaylor; 08-10-2012, 12:19 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
        Your entire rant revolves around your use of the word "solely" when it was not implied AT ALL by the message you're responding to.
        Yes, it was. It implied that Direct3D is not relevant and should not be used because the only people who use it is Microsoft (they are not), and that OpenGL is the clear alternative since it is used everywhere (it is not).

        Holy Guacamole, Batman, that's EXACTLY what the original poster said!
        No, it isn't. The PS3 does not use OpenGL in any useful capacity, and bringing Sony up as a "user of OpenGL or equivalent" makes no fucking sense. Microsoft is a "user of OpenGL or an equivalent" by that logic. Porting your applications to OpenGL doesn't help in the fucking slightest when it comes to porting to the PS3. Nintendo also absolutely does not even "kinda sorta" use OpenGL.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
          That's still impressive, but couldn't they get a bigger performance boost by replacing Direct 3D with OpenGL?
          Yes, because that would remove the translation layer. But it would also involve vast amounts of engine rework, so they chose the sensible option of just adding an abstraction layer.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by elanthis View Post
            Yes, it was. It implied that Direct3D is not relevant and should not be used because the only people who use it is Microsoft (they are not), and that OpenGL is the clear alternative since it is used everywhere (it is not).
            So, who's using d3d except MS and some smartphone vendors who ship crappy windows on their devices? OpenGL is the clear alternative no matter what your biased posts means. dxd is indeed not relevant compared to non d3d devices and OpenGL is the best option to go with.

            Comment


            • #21
              Using a translation layer was the best decision...why ?



              They are making a translation layer as universal as it can get for their engine....because it will be universal for their engine, it will make extremely simple and fast to convert other Source engine titles to LINUX.

              This gives another benefit that is reduce the porting costs to very low levels....making it even easier to achieve profits from Linux ports....one aspect that was discussed here at Phoronix ad nausea.

              No matter they are using a translation layer, they are achieving an impressive performance....and they said that they can squeeze easily 5 % more of speed from further optimization of that layer.

              Even if this only at 1st glance applying to Source Engine, the teachings they got and the tools they learned to use to do it, might well apply to other engines like UE3 or others....this is where their assistance to other partners using other engines can be useful .
              Last edited by AJSB; 08-10-2012, 05:01 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                for me its ok to have translation layer. for now its only for SOURCE and its quite fast. so whats the problem?

                Comment


                • #23
                  A quick note, Mesa 9 with GL 3.1 is planned for release around September this year.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by NomadDemon View Post
                    for me its ok to have translation layer. for now its only for SOURCE and its quite fast. so whats the problem?
                    I also don't see a problem for now...except maybe with less powerful CPUs we might get a performance loss compared with Windows....dunno for sure till we get the beta...

                    However, they seemed to have tested in a relative wide number of computers and they seem confident, so, i guess we can be confident with their work.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by mark45 View Post
                      A quick note, Mesa 9 with GL 3.1 is planned for release around September this year.
                      Well, that escalated quickly

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Yikes, version number inflation from Chrome and FF reached Mesa.

                        On the other hand, props for actually having a longer term stable release strategy than the previous "you get one or two, if we bother".

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by JantarMantar View Post
                          What's stopping Valve now to create a gaming console
                          What didn't stop the Atari Jaguar and Amiga CD32? :-P

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            ... or simply console gaming market shrinking?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by elanthis View Post
                              No, it isn't. The PS3 does not use OpenGL in any useful capacity, and bringing Sony up as a "user of OpenGL or equivalent" makes no fucking sense. Microsoft is a "user of OpenGL or an equivalent" by that logic. Porting your applications to OpenGL doesn't help in the fucking slightest when it comes to porting to the PS3. Nintendo also absolutely does not even "kinda sorta" use OpenGL.
                              I've been trying to make the exact same point for years now. Consoles all use lower level API's because, especially in the case of the Wii/PS3, the OGL implementation is too slow to be useful.

                              Its generally accepted your graphical backend has to be re-written when porting to/from consoles, regardless of the renderer you use.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                                What didn't stop the Atari Jaguar and Amiga CD32? :-P
                                I bought a Sega Saturn =) for $400 when it came out... played Virtua Fighter until my eyeballs bleed so... dunno,

                                Well I don't mind the layer as long as it's stable and fast. Hell as it matures even more it might become a sort of de facto translation tool.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X