Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: Open-Source Doom 3 Running On Wayland

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    869

    Default

    ok libreoffice blender and co are imporatant but frist there was only talked about firefox, I could not care less about firefox ^^

    Today standard is webkit its faster so go for it ^^. just use chromium... if you want a mainstream browser with many plugins... if you dont care about plugins epiphany could be an alternative soon when they ported it to the newest webit version... Who uses freely firefox today? Some people who are ultra-conservative maybe they also even hate gnome-shell ^^

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
    This is Doom 3 running on the free software drivers (as those are the only ones compatabile with Wayland). Since they still do not have the same performance as the proprieraey blobs of course the framerate is not going to be the highest. I do not understand the confusion.
    I see.. I realize that opensource drivers are lower in performance compared to the blobs, but I would think they would at least be able to handle Doom 3 since it's an old game now.

    But then again, it could be a weak graphics card too..

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    36

    Default

    That video wasn't about performance, its about the port running on wayland.
    It was a debug build, weston was running on x11, and the capture process itself adds a significant overhead. So the on screen fps display you see in the video doesn't reflects the performance of the port itself or the open source drivers.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Rural Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,032

    Default

    What frames were you getting without the capture then? Because those are about the frames I do get when running it on my machine, although you may have a better rig.

    Also, I am curious, which utility did you use to make the capture?

    EDIT: Never mind, I read the article again. "The video was done using Wayland's nice video capturing support."
    Last edited by Hamish Wilson; 07-29-2012 at 12:32 PM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 9a3eedi View Post
    Maybe it's just me, but the framerate in that video seems pretty low for a game that's supposed to be 8 years old now. (it's not THAT low, but being a 8 year old game I would expect at least a constant 60 fps or higher)

    I wonder what sort of hardware the guy is running, and what's causing the low framerate...

    And it would be interesting to see the difference in framerate/performance between X11 and Wayland, that way we can know for sure if Wayland really is all what the developers seem to say it is.. a "simpler" and "faster" display protocol than X.
    Quote Originally Posted by dhewg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    What hardware were you using for this?
    Radeon 6850 and i5-3570K at stock clocks.
    (charlimit)

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dhewg View Post
    That video wasn't about performance, its about the port running on wayland.
    It was a debug build, weston was running on x11, and the capture process itself adds a significant overhead. So the on screen fps display you see in the video doesn't reflects the performance of the port itself or the open source drivers.
    I realize it wasn't about performance, but I was just wondering why the framerate was lower than I expected

    Your explaination makes more sense now, thanks.. since it's a debug build and with all that overhead, it's no wonder the framerate is somewhat low.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
    What frames were you getting without the capture then?
    With X11, Radeon 6850 and i5-3570K, SwapbuffersWait off, vblank_mode=0, ultra quality settings @640x480 windowed, 64bit release build (vanilla is 32bit only) I ran 'timeDemo demo1.demo' 4 times, dropped the first result, and I get:

    Code:
    vanilla			122	123	120
    release sdl1		119	121	119
    release sdl2		119	120	117
    I currently cannot run weston on drm because of https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52267. So only weston on X11 for me atm, which doesn't make much sense to benchmark (For the record, its ~95fps).

    Once that bug is fixed I can post some numbers...

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Those are pretty good framerates, but then again it's on 640x480.. have you tried higher resolutions?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 9a3eedi View Post
    Those are pretty good framerates, but then again it's on 640x480.. have you tried higher resolutions?
    Yeah, I know, 640x480 windowed is just what I run most of the time, so the game doesn't get in the way when working on it.
    With the same settings @1600x900 its 79fps on all three runs.
    On even bigger resolutions it starts to slow down to a crawl, but I didn't look into that. Maybe a mesa bug, maybe filled vram, dunno.

    In any case, r600g makes doom3 more than just playable.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    66

    Default

    That's excellent

    I doubt that the slowdown on high resolutions is due to a filled VRAM, it's got 1GB, and assuming the driver reads it properly and use it, it'll take way more than Doom 3 at high resolution to fill it up, I think

Posting Permissions

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