Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 185

Thread: Valve's L4D2 Is Faster On Linux Than Windows

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by F i L View Post
    The reason it's fallen behind in recent years, is because Windows has been The gaming platform for awhile.. that's changing now with the markets focus on Tablets & Smart Phones which are largely OpenGLES driven. So OpenGL is making a comeback, and I hope Valve puts a lot of weight behind this, and the Linux Desktop to bring great graphics to the open technology world.
    OpenGL 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)

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AJSB View Post
    I just read 1st phrase and it seems OPEN SOURCE

    Check it out ! :

    http://code.google.com/p/crunch/
    Interesting.. 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?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 9a3eedi View Post
    Interesting.. 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?
    I dunno how it compares but looking to the frame rate alone, witch doesn't say much by itself, as for performance goes doesn't seem to be a problem.


    If performance is good enough , i don't think that we really need to worry with the darn S3TC .

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Dhaka,Bangladesh
    Posts
    105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 9a3eedi View Post
    If it's superior in most ways, then is there really any need to resolve the S3TC conflict?

    3 words that caused failure to many of the this kind of new approaches, "Already Written Code"

  5. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kiwi_kid_aka_bod View Post
    Except there is no mention of Image Quality. Maybe the DirectX looks twice as good. Who knows.
    Valve knows and that's out of discussion. Maybe even OpenGL looks twice as good?

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
    I 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:
    http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/4152

    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).
    Great read Hamish Wilson, thanks. Somehow it felt strange reading about all that good linux graphics support

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 9a3eedi View Post
    Interesting.. 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?
    It's not really a matter of comparing it to s3tc - it's a compression library for the dxtn formats itself. It doesn't touch on the issue of supporting s3tc in drivers.

    On a different subject: anyone else use the r200 drivers with UT? That combo was fast.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sunshine State
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 9a3eedi View Post
    OpenGL 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)
    MacOSX's version of OpenGL (3.2) and OpenGLES 2 are *similar* in features, though GLES is missing some key things, such as instanced draw-calls. Mostly I'm saying that many indie game developers are writing game engines with OpenGL as their focus because of these devices, and even top AAA game companies and Studios (like Autodesk) need to support OpenGL effectively in their software because of smart-devices and Mac. It's true that Windows is by far the most support platform for games, but even there Xbox and PS3 (which supports OpenGL) have been stealing from it's market share. My point wasn't that OpenGL is now on equal terms with DirectX as far as market share, only that it's starting too look like a sweeter option to many developers... of course, with XBox and Windows 8's Metro requiring DirectX, it's not like DX has any chance of going away for years.

    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.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    This 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..
    From http://www.tomshardware.com/news/joh...oom,12372.html

    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.
    A more balanced perspective I guess.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prescience500 View Post
    I'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.
    It's an encoder, that among other formats encodes to s3tc (it's referred to in several different names, confusion is great no), so it's still affected by the patents.

Posting Permissions

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