Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Quake Wars Performance Across Distros

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Kano View Post
    1000 hz is a bit extreme...
    1000 HZ is recommended in the QW Readme. Also drivers are Catalyst 9.5. As to those of you who get more fps in Linux, I honestly don't know how that is possible at this point. I've tested this over four or five different hardware configurations with multiple kernels and it's always the same.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by nonfatmatt View Post
      1000 HZ is recommended in the QW Readme. Also drivers are Catalyst 9.5. As to those of you who get more fps in Linux, I honestly don't know how that is possible at this point. I've tested this over four or five different hardware configurations with multiple kernels and it's always the same.
      I could run the test on Arch 64, if you like. I just moved to the distro, so I don't know the easiest way to downgrade my kernel to 2.6.28, so I can use fglrx. How did you do it?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by nonfatmatt View Post
        1000 HZ is recommended in the QW Readme. Also drivers are Catalyst 9.5. As to those of you who get more fps in Linux, I honestly don't know how that is possible at this point. I've tested this over four or five different hardware configurations with multiple kernels and it's always the same.
        I also get better fps in counterstrike through wine vs xp

        Comment


        • #19
          The Quake Wars demo runs pretty much like butt in linux on my PC. Frame rate seems decent overall, but it's very jerky. I've tried different driver versions, and different kernels compiled with different options. I would probably have purchased the game by now if it wasn't for this.

          My PC is no world-beater by any means, but even when scaling the graphics down to ridiculously low settings, it's still jerky.

          PC is an Athlon X2 5000+ with a GeForce 8800GTS 640 MB vid card, 4 GB ram.

          Maybe it just needs more horsepower.

          Comment


          • #20
            do yourself a favour and forget that 1000Hz ever existed. 300Hz is a much better choice.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by energyman View Post
              do yourself a favour and forget that 1000Hz ever existed. 300Hz is a much better choice.
              agreed. for most people 1k is overkill

              Comment


              • #22
                Why should we?

                Comment


                • #23
                  who are you asking and what?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by energyman View Post
                    do yourself a favour and forget that 1000Hz ever existed. 300Hz is a much better choice.
                    Yeah, I get that feeling too. I also do pro audio so having 1000hz compiled enables me to not have to boot into RT so it serves a dual purpose.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Also, if anyone wants the demo I used I put it up on Sendspace. http://www.sendspace.com/file/luf8wi

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        you could still try 300 it has the advantage of being more fine grained than 100 and a lot less overhead than 1000.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by energyman View Post
                          you could still try 300 it has the advantage of being more fine grained than 100 and a lot less overhead than 1000.
                          It makes a difference when you're working on an audio project that has 50 tracks going at the same time. On 1000hz I can get my latency down further than I could on 300. I can mix on 300 but not record. I also haven't seen that much of a negative impact considering I mostly just use my system for browsing and writing papers when I'm not doing audio work.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by energyman View Post
                            who are you asking and what?
                            Why 1000 should be bad.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              context switch overhead. Reduced IO performance. A lot of other stuff.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by energyman View Post
                                context switch overhead. Reduced IO performance. A lot of other stuff.
                                Look at my other benchmarks above, especially on the RT kernel which is essentially an extreme version of cranking up the HZ - albeit a really useful one. Basically the tradeoff is that you get a much more responsive system at the cost of throughput. For my specific case it's worthwhile but I'd imagine for 99% of desktop users voluntary preemption and 300 works great. I can't really tell the difference on a server kernel with no preemption at 100hz on a good multicore processor anyway.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X