Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Total War: Warhammer II AMD Radeon / NVIDIA GeForce Linux Gaming Benchmarks

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

  • #41
    Arch is far more simple than any .deb distro

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by mozo View Post
      Arch is far more simple than any .deb distro
      Yep, the simplicity starts from installing and you get the terminal UI https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Installation_guide

      My distribution has OIbaf ppa, AMD wip kernel, Xfce desktop, Steam and wine-staging installed out of box. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKJ-IatUfis
      Last edited by debianxfce; 11-22-2018, 07:04 AM.

      Comment


      • #43
        After you install it and make your settings, Arch is the easiest distro ever. And if you are such a noob use a graphical installer.

        Comment


        • #44
          Would like to see an update on the situation with the benches: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...-2-linux&num=1

          I'm sure you've read the comments on how they're all wrong...

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by gutigone View Post
            Would like to see an update on the situation with the benches: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...-2-linux&num=1

            I'm sure you've read the comments on how they're all wrong...
            That article was already updated earlier today [at the bottom of the first page] when receiving more information from Feral.
            Michael Larabel
            http://www.michaellarabel.com/

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by Michael View Post

              That article was already updated earlier today [at the bottom of the first page] when receiving more information from Feral.
              Burying updates at the bottom is not good, updates should be clearly labelled at the top, it should be the first thing people read in situations like this when the results are just completely wrong. Right now, it feels like you're burying it. As for your statement:
              The original results are still available due to their value in comparison (and that the same configuration was used across all of the GPUs tested, so in that regard it is correct) of performance between GPUs while the second round of benchmarks will be published shortly.
              There's no value in something claiming it's testing one thing when it's actually another because the details of it are just completely false. How can you honestly say there's value in completely incorrect results? Come on, you're better than this.

              You're practically the authority on Linux benchmarking, I expect better. It's silly things like this, that stop me supporting each time I think about doing so.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by gutigone View Post

                Burying updates at the bottom is not good, updates should be clearly labelled at the top, it should be the first thing people read in situations like this when the results are just completely wrong. Right now, it feels like you're burying it. As for your statement:

                There's no value in something claiming it's testing one thing when it's actually another because the details of it are just completely false. How can you honestly say there's value in completely incorrect results? Come on, you're better than this.

                You're practically the authority on Linux benchmarking, I expect better. It's silly things like this, that stop me supporting each time I think about doing so.
                It's not buying at all when it's labeled and always on the first page and where I always mark updates there.

                There is certainly value in seeing how the RADV vs. NVIDIA performance is among GPUs... It's not that these results are just random or something like that, users can compare their own game performance against the graphics cards tested in that same configuration using PTS if they so desire to see relative performance in that comparison, etc. There is value, just that the sub-title of the graphs doesn't reflect what gamers would expect, but as noted, there will be new results coming out (later today) and at that time it will be redirecting to that new article. But moving these comments anyhow to that article thread rather than just trolling other threads.
                Michael Larabel
                http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by Michael View Post

                  It's not buying at all when it's labeled and always on the first page and where I always mark updates there.

                  There is certainly value in seeing how the RADV vs. NVIDIA performance is among GPUs... It's not that these results are just random or something like that, users can compare their own game performance against the graphics cards tested in that same configuration using PTS if they so desire to see relative performance in that comparison, etc. There is value, just that the sub-title of the graphs doesn't reflect what gamers would expect, but as noted, there will be new results coming out (later today) and at that time it will be redirecting to that new article. But moving these comments anyhow to that article thread rather than just trolling other threads.
                  I still disagree about such an important update being at the bottom, still feels buried.

                  If the current article is simply going to turn into a link to the new one, then that's acceptable

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
                    AUR *-Git packages are setup to ALWAYS retrieve latest commits from trunk and update their version every time they're build.

                    The version visible in the webinterface is just whatever commit was latest the last time I uploaded a new version to the AUR.

                    TL;DR : binary builds (oibaf ppa) are static, source builds from trunk (aur mesa-git) are dynamic.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by LoneVVolf View Post

                      AUR *-Git packages are setup to ALWAYS retrieve latest commits from trunk and update their version every time they're build.

                      The version visible in the webinterface is just whatever commit was latest the last time I uploaded a new version to the AUR.

                      TL;DR : binary builds (oibaf ppa) are static, source builds from trunk (aur mesa-git) are dynamic.
                      He's a troll, don't feed it! You can tell he has no clue how arch works.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X