Results 1 to 10 of 47

Thread: Ubuntu 13.04 Desktop Gaming Performance Comparison

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,914

    Default Ubuntu 13.04 Desktop Gaming Performance Comparison

    Phoronix: Ubuntu 13.04 Desktop Gaming Performance Comparison

    In this article are some early benchmark results comparing the OpenGL gaming performance of the Unity, Xfce, Openbox, LXDE, KDE, GNOME Shell, and Enlightenment desktops when running on a recent development snapshot of Ubuntu 13.04. As many earlier benchmarks have shown, the OpenGL frame-rate for Linux games can sway quite greatly depending upon the desktop in use and more specifically the desktop's compositing window manager.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18435

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Basement
    Posts
    389

    Default

    The bad news: Linux desktops are still unoptimized for gaming. Inconsistent at best, complete random at worst.

    The fun news: KDE is freaking slow. Im already looking forward to the neckbeards suggesting hundreds of configs to change instead of just admitting the facts.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    960

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funkSTAR View Post
    The bad news: Linux desktops are still unoptimized for gaming. Inconsistent at best, complete random at worst.

    The fun news: KDE is freaking slow. Im already looking forward to the neckbeards suggesting hundreds of configs to change instead of just admitting the facts.
    That's funny, I thought it was one config change called unredirect full screen windows, which is the recommended setting for game, and used to be the default before they switched back to not unredirecting by default.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Did XFCE have it's compositing effects enabled? I'm surpised it performs so well compared to OpenBox.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,900

    Default

    Michael, clarify here in the forums: was KDE set to unredirect fullscreen windows or not? If so, great, then obviousl theres a regression. But If not then this entire article can be tossed out because the basic premise is "Window manager doesnt matter."

    Like I really dont bash your articles much but you not setting that option from time to time is mine--and others-- biggest peeve with you because theres a certain line between "Keeping the defaults" and "common sense for benchmarking."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    50

    Default Inquiring minds want to know

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Michael, clarify here in the forums: was KDE set to unredirect fullscreen windows or not? If so, great, then obviousl theres a regression. But If not then this entire article can be tossed out because the basic premise is "Window manager doesnt matter."

    Like I really dont bash your articles much but you not setting that option from time to time is mine--and others-- biggest peeve with you because theres a certain line between "Keeping the defaults" and "common sense for benchmarking."
    Agreed, this really needs to be made clear. I used kde 4.10 for gaming and find it quite snappy - but of course I have window rules that say e.g. "inhibit compositing when playing openarena" etc.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Michael, clarify here in the forums: was KDE set to unredirect fullscreen windows or not? If so, great, then obviousl theres a regression. But If not then this entire article can be tossed out because the basic premise is "Window manager doesnt matter."

    Like I really dont bash your articles much but you not setting that option from time to time is mine--and others-- biggest peeve with you because theres a certain line between "Keeping the defaults" and "common sense for benchmarking."
    I disagree, sticking to the default is the most realistic test. What is 'unredirect fullscreen'?
    Every benchmark someone says it's useless because: "Distro Y sucks, distro X wasn't tested", "gcc didn't A,B,C parameters", "kernel ....", "Testing version 3.5.71 is stupid", "Gosh, proper gaming is done with low latency real time kernel."....

    Last time I saw a blog post by kwin dev about Phoronix benchmark. He thought the benchmark was useless, because it didn't use kwin with three different drawing back-ends and n other settings. If everyone had their way, each chart would have thousands of items.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sunshine State
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Where the tests run in Windowed Mode, or Fullscreen? Compositing DEs like Unity/Shell/KDE have Undirect-Fullscreen rendering modes either on by default, or easily enabled. Obviously, if you compare a windowed game running in a composited WM vs a non-composited one like OpenBox (or Xfwm default), then you're going to get better frame rates (though apparently Wayland addresses this nicely).

    I only skimmed the text, but didn't see anywhere where is listed these details. It would be nice to know for these types of benchmarks.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funkSTAR View Post
    The bad news: Linux desktops are still unoptimized for gaming. Inconsistent at best, complete random at worst.
    Then I wonder why it kills windoze in performance?

    The fun news: KDE is freaking slow. Im already looking forward to the neckbeards suggesting hundreds of configs to change instead of just admitting the facts.
    With suspend compositions it's running at full power and it's just a single option. I wouldn't be surprised if such option doesn't exist in gnome shell.

Posting Permissions

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