Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 87

Thread: AMD Catalyst: Ubuntu 12.10 vs. Windows 7

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SuperUserLand
    Posts
    538

    Default

    repeat after me:

    linux is not for games.

    linux is for pros.


    if you want to play your little gay ass games fuck off to windows.

    do what I did: get a laptop with intel graphics = not giving a shit about amd nightmarish linux support.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pallidus View Post
    repeat after me:

    linux is not for games.

    linux is for pros.
    I don't care much for the pissing contest and at the end of the day I'm happy gaming on Linux, using catalyst.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    551

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mitcoes View Post
    And it is rare all the resolutions were very high, for gaming 720p is the common choice now, becasue is twice faster than 1080p, and this 2 resolutions are what matters for gaming with 640x480 and 800x600 for old CRT good monitors.
    Rubbish. Take a good look at the settings most real gamers use on Windows. Almost always at 1600 x 900 or native 1080. With ULTRA settings to boot, and all extra features like 16x MSAA and DX11 extras turned ON. And by recently i mean 'within the past 8 months' recent.

    Under these settings in Windows a good card can easily fetch above 70--80fps if vsync is disabled on a recently-released, high graphics requirement game. Which is a far cry from what the open Radeon driver can ever hope to achieve.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitcoes View Post
    And as a post from kwahoo shows 38 fps dx vs 53 fps open gl at 1080p at Serious Sam 3.with catalyst.
    And openGL looks TERRIBLE when compared to DX 11. Of course you don't experience lower framerates with shittier graphics quality.
    Last edited by Sonadow; 10-20-2012 at 08:13 AM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,626

    Default

    @mitcoes

    maybe you should open your eyes:

    http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/

    Do you see any amd gfx card mentioned? I only see gtx 680, the most common gfx card on earth.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    Rubbish. Take a good look at the settings most real gamers use on Windows. Almost always at 1600 x 900 or native 1080. With ULTRA settings to boot, and all extra features like 16x MSAA and DX11 extras turned ON. And by recently i mean 'within the past 8 months' recent.

    Under these settings in Windows a good card can easily fetch above 70--80fps if vsync is disabled on a recently-released, high graphics requirement game. Which is a far cry from what the open Radeon driver can ever hope to achieve.



    And openGL looks TERRIBLE when compared to DX 11. Of course you don't experience lower framerates with shittier graphics quality.

    Are you sure that actual best selled monitors / graphic cards combos run at 1080p well for gaming?

    Of course a gamer with a good budget will use a SDD and a Intel i7 with a high end ATi or NVIDIA GPU, but most home computers used for casual gaming go better with 720p and not that good hardware.

    And I do like to read game benchmarks for "normal" budget users, more for this new chapter in the future Steam for Linux games, being Ubuntu home machines, normally equiped with old hardware or less powerful hardware performing better than MS WOS for most tasks and perhaps even gaming.

    And of course AMD and NVIDIA blobs are a handicap, if they were open source or at least modular and most parts open source and some - patented - closed, the gaming experience with better drivers for Linux will improve.

    Last but not least, in FPS games, at least in old Q3 times, pros used to put minimal settings to better aiming and liked to use 120 Hz and limit to 120 fps with 800x600 and even lower resolutions with that time high end machines. I remember some pro cfgs - I never liked to play that way - where Quake3 appears almost without any decoration.

    PS: And we will have to add to this benchmarks soon ARM SoCs, Samsung has an intereesting new cheap ARM chromebook, Ubuntu TV for ARM TVs will be soon out there, and OUYA too, and this vs MS WOS 8 RT benchmarks will not be able to be done even at 1080p for a good gaming experience.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sunshine State
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    And openGL looks TERRIBLE when compared to DX 11. Of course you don't experience lower framerates with shittier graphics quality.
    This is simply wrong. There's no outstanding difference between modern OpenGL and DirectX APIs... both support almost identical control over the hardware (in some cases, OpenGL actually provides more, due to it's extenability) and produce equally compelling results at similar frame-rates.

    Please do a little research before you spread false information.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sunshine State
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pallidus View Post
    repeat after me:

    linux is not for games.

    linux is for pros.


    if you want to play your little gay ass games fuck off to windows.

    do what I did: get a laptop with intel graphics = not giving a shit about amd nightmarish linux support.
    You are clearly not a visionary. In order for the Linux desktop to grow in support (which makes both casual and professional's lives easier) the desktop needs to be in a position for modern gaming. The good news is it's getting there.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    I only see gtx 680, the most common gfx card on earth.
    Err, what?

    High end cards like that are never anywhere close to as common as the low-end, cheap cards.

    Not even among gamers...

    http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

    Has it listed as #43.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    Rubbish. Take a good look at the settings most real gamers use on Windows. Almost always at 1600 x 900 or native 1080. With ULTRA settings to boot, and all extra features like 16x MSAA and DX11 extras turned ON. And by recently i mean 'within the past 8 months' recent.
    Not true. A pro-gamer tries to get the game as smooth as possible, higher settings reduce the smoothness. Sometimes they see even more (visibly) by turning off extras (shadows, for example).
    [quote]Under these settings in Windows a good card can easily fetch above 70--80fps if vsync is disabled on a recently-released, high graphics requirement game. Which is a far cry from what the open Radeon driver can ever hope to achieve.
    Define "good card" and "recently-released, high graphics requirement game" or all you told is useless.
    And openGL looks TERRIBLE when compared to DX 11. Of course you don't experience lower framerates with shittier graphics quality.
    I must be blind. Please tell me where exactly you see that terrible differences:

    vs.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TAXI View Post
    Not true. A pro-gamer tries to get the game as smooth as possible, higher settings reduce the smoothness. Sometimes they see even more (visibly) by turning off extras (shadows, for example).
    some pro gamers also use very slow resolutions like 800x600...

    real pro gamers in fact don't play for "graphic"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •