Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD A10-7850K Kaveri: Windows 8.1 vs. Ubuntu Linux

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by Tgui View Post
    Same day support finally!
    Same day support with the proprietary driver. It's 2014.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by gutigen View Post
      Or maybe stop benchmarking irrelevant for Linux gaming apps and games, but focus on things that matter - games I've mentioned earlier. For maybe 20 irrelevant tests we get 1 that makes sense, kinda stupid if you ask me.

      Windows tests always have most popular and most demanding games in them and maybe one artificial benchmark (like 3D Mark). It's like Linux has only open source, Opengl 2.0 (at best) Quake clones and a few benchmarks from a company no one cares about and which are using game engine no one else is using.

      Not that I don't appreciate Michael's work, but all those tests do not represent real state of GPUs and drivers under Linux.

      There is also huge difference between putting results at main page with and digging through Phoronix depths to find something usefull.
      I kind of agree, but more from the view point that if the SteamBox/OS takes off, then more main stream sites will start benching marking it on relevant games, which then has the chance of leaving Phoronix in pretty much the dust of Linux benchmarks.

      Comment


      • #13
        I think the unigine tests are NOT irrelevant at all;
        they *DO* "represent real state of GPUs and drivers under Linux" and Windows.
        Thanks Michael for doing them.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by kokoko3k View Post
          I think the unigine tests are NOT irrelevant at all;
          they *DO* "represent real state of GPUs and drivers under Linux" and Windows.
          Thanks Michael for doing them.
          No they don't, there is that thing called optimization, you know? Often drivers have to be optimizied for specific app to work properly. Testing an app which only Phoronix is using or a Quake Engine Opengl 2.0, 10 years old game with 50 people player base and one basement based developer doesn't represent real state of drivers and GPUs.

          I wouldn't be suprised if AMD was using Phoronix Test Suite or just Unigine benchmarks to fast test their GPUs and move on to more important stuff like Windows and consoles. It would explain why Unigine benchmarks are the only modern apps which work properly under Linux.
          gutigen
          Senior Member
          Last edited by gutigen; 14 January 2014, 04:12 PM.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by gutigen View Post
            No they don't, there is that thing called optimization, you know? Often drivers have to be optimizied for specific app to work properly. Testing an app which only Phoronix is using or a Quake Engine Opengl 2.0, 10 years old game with 50 people player base and one basement based developer doesn't represent real state of drivers and GPUs.

            I wouldn't be suprised if AMD was using Phoronix Test Suite or just Unigine benchmarks to fast test their GPUs and move on to more important stuff like Windows and consoles. It would explain why Unigine benchmarks are the only modern apps which work properly under Linux.
            Unigine Valley hardly is OpenGL 2.0...

            Trolling...

            Comment


            • #16
              better benchmark AMD wise would be how many crashes and how many broken/unsupported things. with catalyst&fglrx speed is the least of the problem when and if you actually get it to work

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by gutigen View Post
                Or maybe stop benchmarking irrelevant for Linux gaming apps and games, but focus on things that matter - games I've mentioned earlier. For maybe 20 irrelevant tests we get 1 that makes sense, kinda stupid if you ask me.

                Windows tests always have most popular and most demanding games in them and maybe one artificial benchmark (like 3D Mark). It's like Linux has only open source, Opengl 2.0 (at best) Quake clones and a few benchmarks from a company no one cares about and which are using game engine no one else is using.

                Not that I don't appreciate Michael's work, but all those tests do not represent real state of GPUs and drivers under Linux.

                There is also huge difference between putting results at main page with and digging through Phoronix depths to find something usefull.
                Or, maybe, if you actually read that article, you'd find that your comment just makes you look like an ass. The tests do represent the real state of GPUs and drivers because as long as they're testing different capabilities of the hardware or software, then they're showing what really matters. If anything, I'm glad Michael uses slightly outdated tests. The tests are supposed to show progression of how hardware behaves on linux, and the best way to do that is to use things that aren't frequently updated.

                But seriously Michael, you *need* to post that link in big bold letters on the first page of every GPU test article you post.



                Anyway more on topic of the article, I'm very impressed to see catalyst is so caught up with Windows. I don't ever remember ATI/AMD products on linux having that minimal of a performance gap against windows. I think I'm still going to stick with the open source drivers though.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
                  The tests are supposed to show progression of how hardware behaves on linux.
                  It behaves great when it comes to irrelevant software.
                  It behaves like shit when it comes to games most people actually play.

                  In other words what you're saying here makes as much sense as those tests, read - none.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Given the age of Linux, the age of catalyst/FOSS and the growing age of decent games that use catalyst,mesa,steam,SteamOS,latest kernal im fairly mind blown someone doesn’t on the entire planet create a decent easy to follow benchmark site for games on Linux.

                    Forget that there often slower due to lack of individual patching, the way the internet works with regards to GPU's and driver is that gamers bang their chests when the results are slower and then you get a response from the company.. So again forget a totally accurate like for like age old benchmark lets look at what joe blogs is experiencing .

                    It would go like this

                    Install Ubuntu , Install FGLRX, get things upto date.. post the versions
                    Install Steam
                    Install some free to play games and run them at 1080p with and without AA and Vsync
                    Do some frame times , take averages, talk about vsync and mouse lag if there is any or loading times etc..

                    Install win8, install FGLRX get things upto date ... etc do the same


                    Free to play or extremely cheap games on steam are abundant even on Linux.

                    TF2
                    CS:source
                    DOTA2
                    Killing Floor
                    L4D2
                    Portal
                    Trine 2

                    Make the graph simple side by side with one saying Win8 Min/Av/Max FPS = 50/6070 ......... Ubuntu Min/Av/Max FPS = 5/25/40 ......... SteamOS Max FPS = 6/27/38

                    Yes, it wont be a tried and tested like for like in absolute terms we all get it.. but it will put a spot light on what matters..

                    Real world performance from modern real world games

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by gutigen View Post
                      It behaves great when it comes to irrelevant software.
                      It behaves like shit when it comes to games most people actually play.

                      In other words what you're saying here makes as much sense as those tests, read - none.
                      xonotic and heaven are both very GPU intensive and use a lot of modern GPU technologies - even some of the games you listed don't take advantage of everything GPUs can do. If those tests fail, that's a problem. If the games you care about so much don't play well when tests like Heaven prove capable, that's either your fault or the developer's. I'm not disagreeing that testing those games would show more RELATABLE results, but as long as Michael supplies tests that can take advantage of what the hardware has to offer, that's still RELEVANT.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X