Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Linux Can Deliver A Faster Gaming Experience Than Mac OS X

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,361

    Default Linux Can Deliver A Faster Gaming Experience Than Mac OS X

    Phoronix: Linux Can Deliver A Faster Gaming Experience Than Mac OS X

    Earlier this week on Phoronix were new benchmarks of Ubuntu Linux vs. Mac OS X using a new Apple Mac Book Pro with an Intel Core i5 CPU and a NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M graphics processor. When looking at the tests results overall it ended up being a competitive race between these two Microsoft Windows competitors. In some areas, like the OpenCL computational performance, Apple's operating system commanded a sizable lead. In other areas, like the OpenGL graphics performance, Ubuntu Linux backed by NVIDIA's official but proprietary driver was in control. Here's an additional set of tests showing the measurable leads of NVIDIA Linux over Mac OS X with Apple's NVIDIA driver.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15543

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,525

    Default

    It would also be interesting to see Wine comparisons of the systems, after all, both of them rely on it for gaming a whole lot.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    18

    Default

    I wonder if NVIDIA actively helps with development of Apple's drivers, or if they are just given documentation and Apple does the rest.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by damg View Post
    I wonder if NVIDIA actively helps with development of Apple's drivers, or if they are just given documentation and Apple does the rest.
    Nvidia develops their own drivers but Apple control the graphics stack. This is like Direct3D on Windows, where Microsoft provides the stack and IHVs implement a specific interface to communicate with the actual hardware.

  5. #5

    Default

    it's because apple only cares about gay men, not gaymen.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris200x9 View Post
    it's because apple only cares about gay men, not gaymen.
    Congrats you are a homophobe. That's exactly what the Linux community needs, more bigots.

  7. #7

    Default

    maybe the mac's graphic stack is slower but at least they have native steam :'((

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    8

    Default

    While clearly Ubuntu outperforms OS on all these benchmarks, it's also worth pointing out that in most of them the better results are probably not going to be visible because the frame rates are far higher than the monitor's frame rate. The most demanding game seems to be Nexius, where OS X doesn't reach the 30fps threshold under any resolution. All the other games stay above 60fps, sometimes by such a huge margin it's almost a joke. A lot of LCD monitors are locked at a 60fps frame rate.
    That's for average fps, but something that can hurt perceived performance is the minimum fps; if a game frequently dips into the sub-30fps unplayable territory under load, it can be more frustrating than having a constant 45-50fps experience. Even the lowest of the low (non-Nexius) fps here is ~70, so with these games it'd be hard to argue that Ubuntu gives a noticeably smoother experience. Actually, that makes me curious about quality/AA settings used in these benchmarks. Automatically maxed out?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wheels View Post
    Actually, that makes me curious about quality/AA settings used in these benchmarks. Automatically maxed out?
    I don't think any of these tests make use of AA by default.

    BTW, that minimum fps that you see in the graphs isn't the absolute minimum framerate that the game hit, but rather the minimum average framerate (since the graphs only show that) from all the test resolutions. The current PTS doesn't record minimum and maximum framerates for each test run, only average. It would be cool if it did though, as as you have said, that's a much better measure of playability than average fps in cases where this number is above 60fps.

    It's also a shame that there are no nouveau numbers in those graphs.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wheels View Post
    While clearly Ubuntu outperforms OS on all these benchmarks, it's also worth pointing out that in most of them the better results are probably not going to be visible because the frame rates are far higher than the monitor's frame rate. The most demanding game seems to be Nexius, where OS X doesn't reach the 30fps threshold under any resolution. All the other games stay above 60fps, sometimes by such a huge margin it's almost a joke. A lot of LCD monitors are locked at a 60fps frame rate.
    That's for average fps, but something that can hurt perceived performance is the minimum fps; if a game frequently dips into the sub-30fps unplayable territory under load, it can be more frustrating than having a constant 45-50fps experience. Even the lowest of the low (non-Nexius) fps here is ~70, so with these games it'd be hard to argue that Ubuntu gives a noticeably smoother experience. Actually, that makes me curious about quality/AA settings used in these benchmarks. Automatically maxed out?
    If you ever played online fps, you will know that anything before 80fps is not acceptable. The 60hz thing is what once medics found out, but it turned out to be still eye-restraining(on CRT) so it was later highered to 70hz. Still the best hz non-eye restraining started at 85hz. Same for fps - 60 is acceptable, 45 and lower unplayable. And of course you remember the first recommendation of 24fps that is absolute horror and cinema people any fast action by blending several fast frames into one 24fps ones so it "looks" like its fast(if you pause, such frame looks totally unsharp).


    In fact my HD4770 system with Athlon II x4 630 reaches ONLY 60 fps on opensource radeon drivers (fullhd though) in OpenArena and it is much less playable than current nvidia chipset 8300 system with proprietary that Im now typing from(not at home) - 120fps+.

    We can talk 100 pages about how LCD Vtrace is limited at 60 frames anyway, but in practice anything before 85fps is not playable in fps shooters. You need two systems to be able to compare. Of course some persons are SO slow, that they cannot distiquish 30 and 60 fps. Its highly personal and reaction based.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •