Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RadeonSI Gallium3D Might Run As Well As Catalyst For CS:GO Linux

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by FutureSuture View Post
    That is a big point against open source software, really.
    Open source doesn't mean that everybody has to add features to every project...
    It's important because you can fix problems on your computer on your own. Those problems don't always require deep understanding of the code, sometimes it's just a function name that changed in a library, or a simple null dereference. With a stack trace, the source code and sometimes google you can at least workaround the problem until there's a real fix. With closed source software you're screwed and left with unusable software until (or even if!) the one with the source code comes up with a solution.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by gutigen View Post
      It is not, higher framerate is actually measured from frame latency which at 60fps is 16.7ms, while for 120 fps it's only 8.3ms which directly translates to input latency which for fast paced games is crucial. Also when machines achieves higher framerate than 60 at most times it's most likely to not drop below 60 when lots of shit happens on the screen (unless game is badly optimized), which results in not dropping frame latency which results in keeping your input latency somehow consitent and responsive which results in me shooting your head faster than you with 60fps or below.

      This is not my area of expertise, but ask anyone who has something to do with game or graphics stack development and he will confirm.
      I can confirm all you said....MORE Frames Per Second is ALWAYS better in First Person Shooter game and ANYONE that says the opposite is:

      1) AN IDIOT

      or

      2) NOT a FPS GAMER

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by FutureSuture View Post
        What I do not understand is that the Linux community hails open source software to the heavens, and understandably so from a philosophical standpoint, but when it comes to the real life example that is AMD's open driver, where is the community to show just how powerful open source software can be? Probably working on another new distro aimed at a niche allegedly not served by the hundreds of other distros out there. AMD's open driver is improving much quicker than AMD's closed driver but was also much further behind. Instead of waiting for AMD to throw more resources at its open driver, or even its closed driver, why doesn't the community step up and pick up the pace and put it past AMD's closed driver already?
        Catalyst is UTTER C**P.
        Makes L4D2 and TF2 stutter so much that are IMPOSSIBLE to play in Linux with my AMD APU.

        OTOH, if i use RADEON OSS drivers they play EXTREMELY smooth, i would dare to say that *feels* even better than in Window$.

        This is very different from situation for NVIDIA hardware...Nouveau simply doesn't deliver , you have to use NVIDIA closed source driver.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by AJSB View Post
          I can confirm all you said....MORE Frames Per Second is ALWAYS better in First Person Shooter game and ANYONE ......
          Nope.
          The highest fps you ever need... is the refresh rate of your monitor. Anything more is a waste of electricity. I've seen some people claim getting 120fps on their 60hrz monitor is supperior than other people getting 60 fps on their 60htrz monitors. All they are doing by having v-sync off is to wear out the fans on their gpu quicker and use more electricity than they need to.

          Second, screen tearing can be more distracting/imersion breaking than lower fps for various people. I am willing, if my hardware can't play the game fast enough to get a steady 60 fps, I will still keep v-sync on because screen tearing is extremely imersion breaking for me and the performance hit (42fps vs 45) is relativly minor. Other people aren't bothered by screen tearing and always have v-sync off.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by ua=42 View Post
            Nope.
            The highest fps you ever need... is the refresh rate of your monitor. Anything more is a waste of electricity. I've seen some people claim getting 120fps on their 60hrz monitor is supperior than other people getting 60 fps on their 60htrz monitors. All they are doing by having v-sync off is to wear out the fans on their gpu quicker and use more electricity than they need to.

            Second, screen tearing can be more distracting/imersion breaking than lower fps for various people. I am willing, if my hardware can't play the game fast enough to get a steady 60 fps, I will still keep v-sync on because screen tearing is extremely imersion breaking for me and the performance hit (42fps vs 45) is relativly minor. Other people aren't bothered by screen tearing and always have v-sync off.
            1st of all i HAVE a 120Hz monitor....scratch that...i have TWO 120Hz monitors...so YES, i get better performance AND w/o screen tearing in my monitors (at least up to 120 FPS and above that i also don't notice but maybe because i must be one of those lucky ones that don't notice it).

            As for v-sync, a FPS gamer should always use it OFF.
            v-sync induces LAG.
            Last edited by AJSB; 26 September 2014, 01:21 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by ua=42 View Post
              Nope.
              The highest fps you ever need... is the refresh rate of your monitor. Anything more is a waste of electricity. I've seen some people claim getting 120fps on their 60hrz monitor is supperior than other people getting 60 fps on their 60htrz monitors. All they are doing by having v-sync off is to wear out the fans on their gpu quicker and use more electricity than they need to
              Actually, this is wrong in most FPS games, there is a use to higher FPS than your refresh rate: on HL1 and Source engine games, the client will send a command packet on every frame. If you limit your FPS to your refresh rate, then you'll limit the number of command packets you're sending to the server, which mostly means that you'll have a worse bullet registry. TF2 servers run at a tickrate of 66, which means you should at least have 66 FPS on your client if you want to send 66 packets/s. CS GO, it depends of the server, but a lot of servers are tickrate 128...so it would be best to have at least 128 FPS.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by curaga View Post
                Do you not count yourself in "the Linux community"? What is your reason?
                I am currently at university studying my way through a computer science degree which, of course, involves programming. I will get there eventually, but am not ready. Over the past year I have contributed 625 USD to open source projects. Not much, admittedly, but it's better than what I can offer in terms of coding.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by FutureSuture View Post
                  it's better than what I can offer in terms of coding.
                  You would be surprised how much of any software, including most of an OS stack, is easier than fizzbuzz. Most UI elements, for example. All the file IO. All the network transactions (assuming you do not have to set up your own sockets and have some high level networking library in your framework). 90% of it is trivial but time consuming, and 10% is hard mathy stuff and will break everything else when it goes wrong.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by ua=42 View Post
                    Nope.
                    The highest fps you ever need... is the refresh rate of your monitor. Anything more is a waste of electricity. I've seen some people claim getting 120fps on their 60hrz monitor is supperior than other people getting 60 fps on their 60htrz monitors. All they are doing by having v-sync off is to wear out the fans on their gpu quicker and use more electricity than they need to.

                    Second, screen tearing can be more distracting/imersion breaking than lower fps for various people. I am willing, if my hardware can't play the game fast enough to get a steady 60 fps, I will still keep v-sync on because screen tearing is extremely imersion breaking for me and the performance hit (42fps vs 45) is relativly minor. Other people aren't bothered by screen tearing and always have v-sync off.
                    It be nice to see power usage stats with Vsync on, I always have it on. It be nice to see some phoronix tests with it to see what cards/drivers combos have the best power efficiency and have consistent fps(don't drop) with Vsync on.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by AJSB View Post
                      1st of all i HAVE a 120Hz monitor....scratch that...i have TWO 120Hz monitors...so YES, i get better performance AND w/o screen tearing in my monitors (at least up to 120 FPS and above that i also don't notice but maybe because i must be one of those lucky ones that don't notice it).
                      I never said to cap it at 60 hrtz. 120 hrtz monitor is supperior to a 60 htrz monitor. I said it is pointless to have it refresh at a faster rate than your monitor can handle. In your case being faster than 120 fps would be pointless.



                      As for v-sync being on or off.... We're probably never going to agree. I find giving up 1-5ms of responce time worth it. You don't.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X