Originally posted by F i L
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Valve's L4D2 Is Faster On Linux Than Windows
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by AJSB View Post
If it's superior in most ways, then is there really any need to resolve the S3TC conflict?
Comment
-
Originally posted by 9a3eedi View PostInteresting.. I wonder how it compares to S3TC in terms of quality, performance, and memory usage.
If it's superior in most ways, then is there really any need to resolve the S3TC conflict?
If performance is good enough , i don't think that we really need to worry with the darn S3TC .
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View PostI would actually argue that Linux was in a better state when it came to graphics drivers way back in the day when we still had Loki. We had solid support and FOSS drivers from companies such as 3DFX and Matrox, and ATI was a more competitive option than it was for all the years it stagnated after going like Nvidia and being proprietary only before AMD bought them and revived their free efforts.
Don't believe me? Read this article from the time:
We are only now approaching a similar state as we had then with high-performance blobs but also decent supported FOSS drivers (only in this case from Intel and AMD).
Comment
-
Originally posted by 9a3eedi View PostInteresting.. I wonder how it compares to S3TC in terms of quality, performance, and memory usage.
If it's superior in most ways, then is there really any need to resolve the S3TC conflict?
On a different subject: anyone else use the r200 drivers with UT? That combo was fast.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 9a3eedi View PostOpenGL ES is really just meant for embedded devices, like phones and tablets. It's nowhere near as capable as Direct3D 11 and OpenGL 4.2 from what I know. I agree that OpenGL ES is becoming very popular for smartphones, but this probably doesn't mean that it's having a comeback on desktops though. Most computer (read: not consoles) gamers are on Windows, and so most developers develop only for Windows, and if they do that they might as well use the best API avaliable for Windows which is DirectX. I think it'll take a lot more that just slightly faster framerates to have developers switch to OpenGL and give OpenGL its "comeback" (as much as I'd love to see that happen lol)
Honestly, instead of all this "we vs them" kind of thinking, I would love to see Microsoft open source more of their tech... maybe some day.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BO$$ View PostThis fps improvement was actually predictable knowing that the linux kernel is much better optimized than windows. Also windows is just shit when it comes to memory management...and since opengl is the only way in linux the drivers are probably better optimized than in windows where direct shit is king.
As a side question. Why are people still programming for directx? It works only on windows. Program for opengl and you make your engine more portable from the start for if (actually when) you'll port it to linux. It's not like directx is so much easier than opengl.... brainwashed devs..
id Software mad scientist and first-person shooter "granddaddy" John Carmack said that DirectX has matured to the point where it's now a better API than OpenGL. It handles multi-threading better and newer versions manage state better. But he doesn't have plans in moving to DirectX any time soon, blaming inertia for the studio's continued use of OpenGL.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Prescience500 View PostI'd like to know more about this crunch that was mentioned in the comments of the page that Michael got this information from. It would be awesome if it is open and patent free and is able to solve the st3c problem.
Comment
Comment