Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 97

Thread: Windows 8 Outperforming Ubuntu Linux With Intel OpenGL Graphics

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pawlerson View Post
    That's true, but hey! Phoronix FUDs as usual.
    I am completely new and don't know but I have just checked that the false conclusion that windows 8 is faster is being spread there out with news/blogs reporting phoronix 'findings'.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Tallahassee. FL
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Well I have a i5+hd4000 laptop and I do not miss windows 8 bloated UI at all. But it has been know that Intel's driver for windows performs better. The gap as been closing steadily but isn't there yet... The open source Intel driver is alright as it stands, its plays CS:S and DoD:S fine (with a work~around) and it has played good with Wine. It isn't my 1100t+670GTX with Nvidia's BLOB but the OSS driver does the job fine for my little 12 inch.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rexilion View Post
    I find that really hard to believe. If Intel is already developing drivers for their hardware, aren't they already giving away all the details?
    The "cheating" is a bit different (and I don't know that Intel has ever been found to do it, though both AMD and NVIDIA have). The cheating is that the drivers can detect popular benchmarks or games and make changes to the rendered scene to improve performance.

    A famous example is when one driver cheated hard at LightsMark and did some special culling of the submitted geometry. Users who modified the benchmark found that if you turned the camera around while using said driver, you'd see broken geometry. On other drivers, you'd see the bits of the scene you'd expect.

    This is a popular tactic for both common benchmarks and newer games. It lets the driver authors publish much higher benchmark numbers for a stock configuration of the application, tricking users into buying their hardware/driver despite the fact that it is no faster in the general case or on app configurations they didn't cheat at, or that games might break if the user does something out of the ordinary on a cheated configuration.

    That's unlikely in FOSS drivers because all that code is a huge maintenance burden that only helps in marketing products, something that FOSS projects are not generally interested in. Also, spilling the beans on why a particular benchmark is so good kind of defeats the purpose of cheating at the benchmark in the first place.

    Again, there's no evidence I know of that Intel's Windows drivers are guilty of this at all.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
    The "cheating" is a bit different (and I don't know that Intel has ever been found to do it, though both AMD and NVIDIA have). The cheating is that the drivers can detect popular benchmarks or games and make changes to the rendered scene to improve performance.

    A famous example is when one driver cheated hard at LightsMark and did some special culling of the submitted geometry. Users who modified the benchmark found that if you turned the camera around while using said driver, you'd see broken geometry. On other drivers, you'd see the bits of the scene you'd expect.

    This is a popular tactic for both common benchmarks and newer games. It lets the driver authors publish much higher benchmark numbers for a stock configuration of the application, tricking users into buying their hardware/driver despite the fact that it is no faster in the general case or on app configurations they didn't cheat at, or that games might break if the user does something out of the ordinary on a cheated configuration.

    That's unlikely in FOSS drivers because all that code is a huge maintenance burden that only helps in marketing products, something that FOSS projects are not generally interested in. Also, spilling the beans on why a particular benchmark is so good kind of defeats the purpose of cheating at the benchmark in the first place.

    Again, there's no evidence I know of that Intel's Windows drivers are guilty of this at all.
    This is very interesting info for me! Could you provide some link to the LightsMark broken geometry issue? Thanks

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,332

    Default

    Would the AF quality count as cheating?

    Earlier Intel Windows drivers had terrible AF quality, but with driver tweaks they got it to filter properly (and slower). So either a real oversight, or attempted cheat that was removed when detected.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default ...

    The title of this disgusting brown nosing article is very misleading. It should be "Windows 8 CLOSED SOUCE DRIVERS perform better than LINUX OPEN SOURCE DRIVERS, but Linux CLOSED SOURCE DRIVERS PERFORM THE SAME AS WINDOWS 8 DRIVERS with OpenGL" That should be the title, clueless shill. BTW, Valve games run much better for me than on my wife's shitty Windows 8 computer.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flooby View Post
    The title of this disgusting brown nosing article is very misleading. It should be "Windows 8 CLOSED SOUCE DRIVERS perform better than LINUX OPEN SOURCE DRIVERS, but Linux CLOSED SOURCE DRIVERS PERFORM THE SAME AS WINDOWS 8 DRIVERS with OpenGL" That should be the title, clueless shill. BTW, Valve games run much better for me than on my wife's shitty Windows 8 computer.
    That remark is
    a) insulting beyond bounds
    b) suggests adjustment to the title for nuance

    There is no reason to adjust the title. Windows GPU drivers are closed source. Linux GPU drivers are either open source or closed source. In the case of Intel, it's only open source. So there is no need to
    a) insult the author of the article
    b) suggest adjustment to the title

    I hope you don't ever reproduce...

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rexilion View Post
    That remark is
    a) insulting beyond bounds
    b) suggests adjustment to the title for nuance

    There is no reason to adjust the title. Windows GPU drivers are closed source. Linux GPU drivers are either open source or closed source. In the case of Intel, it's only open source. So there is no need to
    a) insult the author of the article
    b) suggest adjustment to the title

    I hope you don't ever reproduce...

    +1

    Lots of people do not like data so they want to degrade its importance.

    You CAN compare OpenGL perf just on one gpu :P

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
    The "cheating" is a bit different (and I don't know that Intel has ever been found to do it, though both AMD and NVIDIA have). The cheating is that the drivers can detect popular benchmarks or games and make changes to the rendered scene to improve performance.

    A famous example is when one driver cheated hard at LightsMark and did some special culling of the submitted geometry. Users who modified the benchmark found that if you turned the camera around while using said driver, you'd see broken geometry. On other drivers, you'd see the bits of the scene you'd expect.

    This is a popular tactic for both common benchmarks and newer games. It lets the driver authors publish much higher benchmark numbers for a stock configuration of the application, tricking users into buying their hardware/driver despite the fact that it is no faster in the general case or on app configurations they didn't cheat at, or that games might break if the user does something out of the ordinary on a cheated configuration.

    That's unlikely in FOSS drivers because all that code is a huge maintenance burden that only helps in marketing products, something that FOSS projects are not generally interested in. Also, spilling the beans on why a particular benchmark is so good kind of defeats the purpose of cheating at the benchmark in the first place.

    Again, there's no evidence I know of that Intel's Windows drivers are guilty of this at all.

    I'm really glad that someone understands. Games and benchmarks speak to the driver, not directly to the hardware. If the driver wants to cheat will cheat, there is not technology available to measure quality of the picture. In fact when you have 2x GPUs you only have +50% FPS, that's is because the driver goes in quality and precision mode, same with double the shaders. My opinion is this:

    NV-Kepler= 3.2_Tflops@64bit_(Intel comparison) = 6.4@32bit_(AMD comparison) = 9.6@Fmac=trioperant_(AMD HD2000-6000, G80-300, PS3, XBOX360 comparison).

    AMD-HD7000= 3.8_Tflops@32bit = 5.7@Fmac=trioperant.

    Intel-4000= 170_Gflops@64bit = 340@32bit =510@Fmac=trioperant.

    Also there is not an exact way to compare open source drivers with the closed ones, because the closed ones cheat. If you ask me Intels_open and Intels_closed are equals. Also they share the same OpenGL code. How the hell some of you figure out that are different? Make your brain think!

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artivision View Post
    I'm really glad that someone understands. Games and benchmarks speak to the driver, not directly to the hardware. If the driver wants to cheat will cheat, there is not technology available to measure quality of the picture. In fact when you have 2x GPUs you only have +50% FPS, that's is because the driver goes in quality and precision mode, same with double the shaders.
    The title of the article mentioned testing the drivers. Not the cards. So what's the point?

    Furthermore, FPS is only a single (one of many) ratio's defining 'performance'. So an 50% increase in FPS will not increase performance with 50%.

    Quote Originally Posted by artivision View Post
    My opinion is this:

    NV-Kepler= 3.2_Tflops@64bit_(Intel comparison) = 6.4@32bit_(AMD comparison) = 9.6@Fmac=trioperant_(AMD HD2000-6000, G80-300, PS3, XBOX360 comparison).

    AMD-HD7000= 3.8_Tflops@32bit = 5.7@Fmac=trioperant.

    Intel-4000= 170_Gflops@64bit = 340@32bit =510@Fmac=trioperant.
    I have no idea what this is about.

    Quote Originally Posted by artivision View Post
    Also there is not an exact way to compare open source drivers with the closed ones, because the closed ones cheat.
    The fact that closed source drivers does not make them cheat by definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by artivision View Post
    If you ask me Intels_open and Intels_closed are equals. Also they share the same OpenGL code.
    First you assert that closed source drivers cheat, and now you say that in the case of Intel they don't because they share some code for rendering.

    I don't think that the DRM intel driver part is shared with Windows.

    Quote Originally Posted by artivision View Post
    How the hell some of you figure out that are different? Make your brain think!
    I just did, and you speak nonsense.

Posting Permissions

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