Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Valve's L4D2 Is Faster On Linux Than Windows

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

  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by RealNC View Post
    Hm? What do you mean? If you bench Linux vs Windows GL implementations, you end up with how much faster the one is over the other with the specific game 3D engine you tested. If Linux is 3-4% faster, then obviously that's the impact you can project to overall GL performance on that specific game 3D engine. If you run the game on a low-end NVidia GPU that can't deliver more than 30 or 40FPS with that game, then that translates to 1 or 2 FPS difference.
    I think his point is that these performance figures only give an overall view of CPU+GPU+overhead.
    You don't know how much of that performance is variable between the OSes, and how much of it is constant just because the CPU and GPU are that fast.
    For example, with a framerate of 60 fps, you have 16.7 ms per frame.
    Let's say 5 ms of that is the overhead of the CPU sending commands to the GPU, and the remaining 11.7 ms is the GPU rendering the actual scene.
    Now, the GPU won't go any faster than that, regardless of the OS used, so that would mean that less than 30% of the total performance can be affected by the OS at all.

    So I think he has a point: you can't just generalize these figures to any arbitrary framerate, since you don't know how much of these figures is caused by OS differences, and how much is constant time spent by the GPU.

    Leave a comment:


  • RealNC
    replied
    Originally posted by Kano View Post
    What logic is that you can scale down a 300+ fps down to 60? that's complete bullshit!
    Hm? What do you mean? If you bench Linux vs Windows GL implementations, you end up with how much faster the one is over the other with the specific game 3D engine you tested. If Linux is 3-4% faster, then obviously that's the impact you can project to overall GL performance on that specific game 3D engine. If you run the game on a low-end NVidia GPU that can't deliver more than 30 or 40FPS with that game, then that translates to 1 or 2 FPS difference.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    What logic is that you can scale down a 300+ fps down to 60? that's complete bullshit!

    Leave a comment:


  • fritsch
    replied
    2.374 fps are at least 10K points _more_ in the 3DMark 2014 Benchmark :-)
    Last edited by fritsch; 08-03-2012, 08:02 AM. Reason: forget the _more_ while doing a joke

    Leave a comment:


  • RealNC
    replied
    Originally posted by RussianNeuroMancer View Post
    Tell me, how you count?
    315 * 100 / 303 = 103.96%

    So if we take Windows OGL as the base (100%), then Linux OGL performance is 103.96%. That's 3.96% higher.

    With a 60FPS base, a 3.96% difference translates to:

    60 * 0.0396 = 2.37FPS

    You get 2.3-2.4 more FPS on Linux. It's elementary school math ^_^

    Edit:
    Oh, and obviously the lower the overall performance is (for example extreme graphics that drop to 30FPS or lower), the lower the FPS difference. For 30FPS scenes, you only get 1FPS more on Linux.
    Last edited by RealNC; 08-03-2012, 08:01 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by AJSB View Post
    They also used NVIDIA drivers in Windows 7....and they are also highly (maybe even more than in Linux almost for sure) optimised in Windows.
    I never said otherwise. I just said that 'shitty drivers' is not quite correct.
    It's comparing apples and oranges, but at the least we can say both drivers are optimized quite well.
    I'm quite sure that we won't see the same results on AMD hardware. My experience has always been that AMD's OpenGL performance is good in Windows, near the level of nVidia's OpenGL, and in line with D3D performance on the same hardware as well... But on linux you take a considerable hit with AMD (I assume AMD also shares the OpenGL codebase between Windows and linux, so that would mean that the difference is mostly caused by the other optimizations that nVidia put in, where AMD just sticks to standard Xorg stuff etc).

    Leave a comment:


  • AJSB
    replied
    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    No, they used the nVidia linux drivers, which are highly optimized. Aside from that, the OpenGL code for nVidia's binary drivers is shared between all OSes. So there is no quality difference in the OpenGL implementation. The only difference is in OS-specific parts of the driver, but nVidia has gone to great lenghts to optimize their linux drivers (even reimplementing a large part of Xorg's resource handling in the driver).
    They also used NVIDIA drivers in Windows 7....and they are also highly (maybe even more than in Linux almost for sure) optimised in Windows.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by NomadDemon View Post
    windows + super drivers vs linux with shitty drivers = linux win by 2 fps.
    No, they used the nVidia linux drivers, which are highly optimized. Aside from that, the OpenGL code for nVidia's binary drivers is shared between all OSes. So there is no quality difference in the OpenGL implementation. The only difference is in OS-specific parts of the driver, but nVidia has gone to great lenghts to optimize their linux drivers (even reimplementing a large part of Xorg's resource handling in the driver).
    Last edited by Scali; 08-03-2012, 07:50 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by RussianNeuroMancer View Post
    Does it actually works? I mean gaming experience.
    I have a laptop from ~2007, which has a DX10-capable Intel IGP X3100.
    I have been able to run Crysis on that, in DX10 mode. The framerate may have been poor and not very playable, but technically it was able to handle everything.
    On the OpenGL-side it only supports OpenGL 2.0 (which is equivalent to base-level Direct3D9/SM2.0, rather than the D3D10/SM4.0 that the chip is capable of). I can run neither Doom 3 nor Rage on it, despide both being considerably less graphically challenging than Crysis in DX10 mode.
    So it's purely being held back by the OpenGL driver, not the hardware.
    If I had proper drivers (or if the games were written with D3D), I'm sure that it would be fast enough to play Doom 3 and Rage.
    But sadly, I get good DX10 drivers, but no OpenGL.

    Leave a comment:


  • AJSB
    replied
    Originally posted by RussianNeuroMancer View Post
    Does it actually works? I mean gaming experience.
    So, where we can read it?
    Do you understand Portuguese language ?!?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X