AMD Catalyst: Ubuntu 12.10 vs. Windows 7

[mitcoes]

Rubbish. Take a good look at the settings most real gamers use on Windows. Almost always at 1600 x 900 or native 1080. With ULTRA settings to boot, and all extra features like 16x MSAA and DX11 extras turned ON. And by recently i mean 'within the past 8 months' recent.

Under these settings in Windows a good card can easily fetch above 70--80fps if vsync is disabled on a recently-released, high graphics requirement game. Which is a far cry from what the open Radeon driver can ever hope to achieve.



And openGL looks TERRIBLE when compared to DX 11. Of course you don't experience lower framerates with shittier graphics quality.

Are you sure that actual best selled monitors / graphic cards combos run at 1080p well for gaming?

Of course a gamer with a good budget will use a SDD and a Intel i7 with a high end ATi or NVIDIA GPU, but most home computers used for casual gaming go better with 720p and not that good hardware.

And I do like to read game benchmarks for "normal" budget users, more for this new chapter in the future Steam for Linux games, being Ubuntu home machines, normally equiped with old hardware or less powerful hardware performing better than MS WOS for most tasks and perhaps even gaming.

And of course AMD and NVIDIA blobs are a handicap, if they were open source or at least modular and most parts open source and some - patented - closed, the gaming experience with better drivers for Linux will improve.

Last but not least, in FPS games, at least in old Q3 times, pros used to put minimal settings to better aiming and liked to use 120 Hz and limit to 120 fps with 800x600 and even lower resolutions with that time high end machines. I remember some pro cfgs - I never liked to play that way - where Quake3 appears almost without any decoration.

PS: And we will have to add to this benchmarks soon ARM SoCs, Samsung has an intereesting new cheap ARM chromebook, Ubuntu TV for ARM TVs will be soon out there, and OUYA too, and this vs MS WOS 8 RT benchmarks will not be able to be done even at 1080p for a good gaming experience.

[F i L]

And openGL looks TERRIBLE when compared to DX 11. Of course you don't experience lower framerates with shittier graphics quality.

This is simply wrong. There's no outstanding difference between modern OpenGL and DirectX APIs... both support almost identical control over the hardware (in some cases, OpenGL actually provides more, due to it's extenability) and produce equally compelling results at similar frame-rates.

Please do a little research before you spread false information.

[F i L]

repeat after me:

linux is not for games.

linux is for pros.


if you want to play your little gay ass games fuck off to windows.

do what I did: get a laptop with intel graphics = not giving a shit about amd nightmarish linux support.

You are clearly not a visionary. In order for the Linux desktop to grow in support (which makes both casual and professional's lives easier) the desktop needs to be in a position for modern gaming. The good news is it's getting there.

[smitty3268]

I only see gtx 680, the most common gfx card on earth.

Err, what?

High end cards like that are never anywhere close to as common as the low-end, cheap cards.

Not even among gamers...

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

Has it listed as #43.

[TAXI]

Rubbish. Take a good look at the settings most real gamers use on Windows. Almost always at 1600 x 900 or native 1080. With ULTRA settings to boot, and all extra features like 16x MSAA and DX11 extras turned ON. And by recently i mean 'within the past 8 months' recent.

Not true. A pro-gamer tries to get the game as smooth as possible, higher settings reduce the smoothness. Sometimes they see even more (visibly) by turning off extras (shadows, for example).
[quote]Under these settings in Windows a good card can easily fetch above 70--80fps if vsync is disabled on a recently-released, high graphics requirement game. Which is a far cry from what the open Radeon driver can ever hope to achieve.
Define "good card" and "recently-released, high graphics requirement game" or all you told is useless.

And openGL looks TERRIBLE when compared to DX 11. Of course you don't experience lower framerates with shittier graphics quality.

I must be blind. Please tell me where exactly you see that terrible differences:

vs.

[necro-lover]

Not true. A pro-gamer tries to get the game as smooth as possible, higher settings reduce the smoothness. Sometimes they see even more (visibly) by turning off extras (shadows, for example).

some pro gamers also use very slow resolutions like 800x600...

real pro gamers in fact don't play for "graphic"

[TAXI]

some pro gamers also use very slow resolutions like 800x600...

real pro gamers in fact don't play for "graphic"

Exactly what I wanted to tell: Lower resolution counts to lower settings and of course a lower resolution makes the game more smooth (less chances of lag cause of GPU stalls and so on).

Sorry if this wasn't clear from the beginning, english isn't my native language.

[sonnet]

Catalyst is improving, but still not there to compete with Nvidia. (It still vastly outperforms the "open source" drivers)

Phoronix reviews are starting to look completely unreliable to me.

In this review (7950 vs gtx 680)
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...0_gtx680&num=5

The 7950 , which is far inferior in Windows to the gtx 680, was performing equally to the gtx 680 on linux.
This suggested that fglrx were faster than nvidia drivers on linux.

Now we get 2 reviews, comparing AMD and Nvidia drivers on linux and Windows, and it appears (and quite noticeably ) the opposite: that Nvidia drivers are better.

[D0pamine]

Open-source video drivers are even less good, so please keep the binary blobs alive as long as they are better. (personally I really need the binary blobs for gaming/Blendering, there is nothing at the moment that could replace it.)

with binary blobs of NVIDIA:
what I like:
- gaming just works
- desktop feels smooth
- I get a control panel for my graphics card
- Blender works faster on Linux than on Windows
- 3D performance seems to be equally to Windows
- etc.

what I don't like:
- plymouth looks weird
- some weird bugs

The open-source drivers:
what I don't like:
- games don't "just run" (missing OGL plugins/slow)
- desktop doesn't feel smooth
- No GUI control panel for my graphics card
- Blender doesn't work AT ALL with Cycles renderer (CUDA)
- 3D performance is just lower than on Windows
- a LOT of bugs/crashes in software

What I like:
- plymouth looks good

So why would you wish the binary blobs dead when there is nothing to replace it AT THE MOMENT?
Just using the graphics card with binary blobs makes a reasenable user experience.
Using the same hardware with Open-source drivers (nouveau) makes a BAD user experience.

PS> Ok, Optimus doesn't work with the binary drivers. Neither does it OOTB with the opensource drivers. That's why I don't buy hardware with optimus UNTIL it is properly supported by the binary drivers.

PPS> Opinions are opinions, facts are facts.

driconf is a gui for .. you know what i'm not even going to bother if you need a gui to do things then you shouldn't be using gnu/linux

[D0pamine]

repeat after me:

linux is not for games.

linux is for pros.


if you want to play your little gay ass games fuck off to windows.

do what I did: get a laptop with intel graphics = not giving a shit about amd nightmarish linux support.

haha yeh... can i still play foobillard and wz2100 though?

i dont know though.. the radeon driver with mesa 9 performs very well - really i was shocked at how well

fuck the blobs though - if you're happy to use a closed blob then you may aswell use windows where games are plentiful