Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Catalyst: Ubuntu 12.10 vs. Windows 7

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

  • F i L
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • F i L
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • mitcoes
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    @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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sonadow
    replied
    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.

    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, 08:13 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • storma
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pallidus
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • mitcoes
    replied
    Where are 720p and 1080p benchmarks - the most common resolutions to play today -

    If Steam did notice Ubuntu was better for games performance than MS WOS why phoronix doesn't?

    Ubuntu allows you too install several desktops

    Why XFCE - my choose since Gnome2 died - is not listed, but why not openbox and Gnome classic - the Gnome shell in Ubuntu would need other installation from the Gbuntu one - but Cinnamon can be installed too easily at any ubuntu distro.

    And of course as I have read here some settings for gaming at each desktop.

    But Unity vs KDE vs XFCE vs openbox, vs E17, vs Cinnamon vs MS WOS bare metal with antivirus vs MS WOS bare metal without antivirus vs MS WOS at Xen VGA passthrough without antivirus would be a better test to read.

    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.

    MS WOS does some tricks when resolutions are high.

    But benchmarking is not to test the higher conditions only, it is basically to compare the NORMAL conditions and the NORMAL - statistically speaking - is 720p and 1080p

    And as a post from kwahoo shows 38 fps dx vs 53 fps open gl at 1080p at Serious Sam 3.with catalyst.

    All this time MS WOS gamers using dx and opengl is better and faster, and I would like to see this same SS3 MS WOS benchmark at 720p that would make this game better to play with.
    Last edited by mitcoes; 10-20-2012, 06:31 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    The difference between the os was clearly visable, maybe it would not be so critical with the used card as it was often faster than 60 fps. Most likely it would be more interesting to test a card thats slower as there you could "feel" the difference then.

    Leave a comment:


  • kwahoo
    replied
    bit offtopic (imo interesting)

    This week Croteam released big update for Serious Sam 3: BFE (the game will be released on Linux soon) - Windows users can use OpenGL renderer now. Very quick comparison (winxp, Catalyst 12.9 beta, fps counter in the right corner):
    Direct3D

    Code:
    00:12:47 INF:   Gfx API: Direct3D
    00:12:47 INF:   Resolution: 1920 x 1080
    00:12:47 INF:   Vendor: ATI (0x1002)
    00:12:47 INF:   Driver: ati2dvag.dll (0x6758)
    00:12:47 INF:   Renderer: AMD Radeon HD 6670
    00:12:47 INF:   Version: 6.14.10.7279
    00:12:47 INF:   Video memory size: 1024 MB
    00:12:47 INF:   Available for textures: 1116 MB
    00:12:47 INF:   Active GPU(s): 1
    00:12:47 LOG:   Processing file Content/SeriousSam3/Config/CheckDriver.lua
    00:12:47 INF:   Driver version: 7279 (required: 7213)
    00:12:47 LOG:   Loaded "D:\Steam\steamapps\common\Serious Sam 3\Bin\SfxXAD.dll".
    00:12:47 LOG:   Loaded "X3DAudio1_7.dll".
    Code:
    00:12:51 INF:   AutoDetect: storing new settings: gfx_iPixelProgramVersion=40,gfx_ctConcurrentGPUs=1,sys_iGPUVendorID=4098,sys_iCPUFamily=15,sys_iCPUMHz=2793,sys_iGPUDeviceID=26456,sys_strCPUVendor=AuthenticAMD,gfx_ulVideoMemoryMB=1024,
    OpenGL


    Code:
    00:19:47 INF:   Gfx API: OpenGL
    00:19:47 INF:   Resolution: 1920 x 1080
    00:19:47 INF:   Vendor: ATI (0x1002)
    00:19:47 INF:   Driver: ATI Technologies Inc. (0x6758)
    00:19:47 INF:   Renderer: AMD Radeon HD 6670
    00:19:47 INF:   Version: 4.2.11903 Compatibility Profile Context
    00:19:47 INF:   Video memory size: 1024 MB
    00:19:47 INF:   Available for textures: 116 MB
    00:19:47 INF:   Active GPU(s): 1
    00:19:47 LOG:   Processing file Content/SeriousSam3/Config/CheckDriver.lua
    00:19:47 INF:   Driver version: 11903 (required: 12000)
    00:19:47 WRN:   Display driver is too old, please update it ASAP!
    00:19:47 LOG:   Loaded "D:\Steam\steamapps\common\Serious Sam 3\Bin\SfxXAD.dll".
    00:19:47 LOG:   Loaded "X3DAudio1_7.dll".
    Code:
    00:19:50 INF:   AutoDetect: storing new settings: gfx_iPixelProgramVersion=30,gfx_ctConcurrentGPUs=1,sys_iGPUVendorID=4098,sys_iCPUFamily=15,sys_iCPUMHz=2793,sys_iGPUDeviceID=26456,sys_strCPUVendor=AuthenticAMD,gfx_ulVideoMemoryMB=1024,

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X