Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Steam Linux Usage Went Up A Tiny Amount In September, Still Less Than 1%

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

  • Ardje
    replied
    Originally posted by humbug View Post
    I guess people use mesa drivers for ideological reasons, not for performance. A lot of people will only compare the open drivers to other open drivers, not to closed ones or to what the hardware is actually capable of.
    I wonder if AMD's openGL performance can ever become as good as it's directX performance?
    Actually when I used the oibaf ppa for the latest mesa drivers, that was the only time my ATI worked perfectly. But due to frustrating reasons I had to switch from ubuntu to debian, which does not have the infrastructure and number of active people working on the mesa libraries, so I installed the fglrx. And desktop usage is worse than crap. You cannot run steam under fvwm2 as this fucks up something with font rendering, making the whole thing slow as shit until I have a game fullscreen running.
    My voodoo3 used to perform better. And the mesa also performs better.
    I should test if my ION2 setup also is that crap with steam and fvwm2.
    Anyway: I buy ATI for ideological reasons. And I want to use mesa for speed reasons.

    Leave a comment:


  • CapsAdmin
    replied
    Originally posted by humbug View Post
    I guess people use mesa drivers for ideological reasons, not for performance. A lot of people will only compare the open drivers to other open drivers, not to closed ones or to what the hardware is actually capable of.

    I wonder if AMD's openGL performance can ever become as good as it's directX performance?
    I'd also like to use mesa instead of nvidias proprietary drivers because if I see something that's performing slowly or not working according to the opengl specifications I could make an issue report and try to work with developers in order to fix it. But also for ideological reasons of course.

    With intel hd5500 there seems to be a little difference but not much. However in my own application I've found nvidia's opengl implementation to be a lot faster on linux than on windows.

    I think it mostly comes down to how you use opengl. Although in amd's case it seems their driver isn't as great too. However I'm not sure how that translates to mesa.

    There are directx wrappers (wine too) that might show some interesting results. If a game performs better under wine it most likely has something to do with how they use opengl.

    Leave a comment:


  • humbug
    replied
    Originally posted by CapsAdmin View Post

    If it also happens with the open/mesa driver where is the time being spent?
    I guess people use mesa drivers for ideological reasons, not for performance. A lot of people will only compare the open drivers to other open drivers, not to closed ones or to what the hardware is actually capable of.

    I wonder if AMD's openGL performance can ever become as good as it's directX performance?

    Leave a comment:


  • CapsAdmin
    replied
    Originally posted by humbug View Post
    AMD gives you great directX performance. In directX performance your GPU is faster than a GTX 970.
    But very poor openGL performance (both on proprietary and open drivers). Most of the time CPU bottle-necked and the numbers tend to look ridiculous when you know what the hardware is capable of.
    If it also happens with the open/mesa driver where is the time being spent?

    Leave a comment:


  • humbug
    replied
    Originally posted by << ⚛ >> View Post
    What do you mean exactly?
    AMD gives you great directX performance. In directX performance your GPU is faster than a GTX 970.
    But very poor openGL performance (both on proprietary and open drivers). Most of the time CPU bottle-necked and the numbers tend to look ridiculous when you know what the hardware is capable of.
    Last edited by humbug; 04 October 2015, 01:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mmstick
    replied
    Originally posted by << ⚛ >> View Post
    Linux is too fragmented. The Steam client doesn't work on Gentoo.
    I'm using Gentoo and it works fine.
    Last edited by mmstick; 03 October 2015, 05:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • atomsymbol
    replied
    Originally posted by johnc View Post

    AMD R9 390, Catalyst 15.9, kernel 4.0.5
    I think we found the problem.
    What do you mean exactly?

    Leave a comment:


  • johnc
    replied
    Originally posted by << ⚛ >> View Post
    Getting 20 FPS average at 1080p in Linux, lowest settings.
    Getting 58 FPS average (nearly vsync rate) at 1080p in Windows 10, very high settings.
    AMD R9 390, Catalyst 15.9, kernel 4.0.5
    I think we found the problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • atomsymbol
    replied
    Originally posted by &lt;&lt; ⚛ &gt;&gt; View Post

    I managed to find the problem. Downloading Shadow of Mordor now ...
    Getting 20 FPS average at 1080p in Linux, lowest settings.
    Getting 58 FPS average (nearly vsync rate) at 1080p in Windows 10, very high settings.
    AMD R9 390, Catalyst 15.9, kernel 4.0.5
    Last edited by atomsymbol; 03 October 2015, 02:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • atomsymbol
    replied
    Originally posted by bobwya View Post

    Yeah, yeah... Linux sucjks. Funny how the Steam client works fine for me on my 2 Gentoo installs (UEFI based gaming laptop and an old X58 Desktop with a Intel Xeon X5650) isn't it??

    The real problem is the crappy game ports we see constantly these days on Linux. Bioshock Infinite has annoying pauses every few seconds... With a gaming laptop with dual Samsung 850 Pro SSDs (1Tb), Intel Core i7-4710HQ @ 2.50GHz, and an Nvidia Geforce GTX 970M - that shouldn't really be happening...
    I managed to find the problem. Downloading Shadow of Mordor now ...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X