| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bammbamm808
Guru
Joined: 08 Dec 2002
Posts: 548
Location: Hawaii
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 6:59 am Post subject: |
 |
|
In my experience, the timedemo results are faster in Windows2k, but the game is much, much smoother in linux, which makes for a superior experience. The minimum framerate in Windows2k seems to be much lower than in linux, and the game seems to hit the low framerates much more frequently. Also, new level loads are minimal for me in linux, whereas, there is that annoying pause when loading a new level under Windows. Probably largely due to my having a much faster hard drive for linux.
_________________
MSI MAG B550 Tomahawk
Ryzen 3900x
32Gb Samsung B-die (16GB dual rank x2) DDR4 @ 3200MHz, cl14
Geforce RTX 2070S 8GB
Samsung m.2 NVME pcie-3.0
Etc.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
-=GGW=- $ol!d $n4>|e
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 1616
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| whoa.. what type of fs do you use.. or is it just a physically faster drive under your tux box? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the lone crouton
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
Posts: 119
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| goulash wrote: | | ahaha that cedega vs linux comparison made me laugh |
Yessssss...
I was comparing cedega to linux-native on the basis that cedega was giving me about the expected fps results that according to many sites I could expect with my hardware if I were running XP; obviously the linux-native spanked cedega, that was kinda the point... but if you RTFP I also asked if anyone with the same hardware running windoze could post a better timedemo FPS...
Beat my fps with my HW specs in windoze...
Then tell me Anands 25% less fps in linux is justified.
_________________
All effort is useless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
astaroth_pod
n00b
Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My results are sadly in line with the Anand review:
Machine:
P4 3Ghz running at 3.3Ghz
Nvidia 5900 Ultra 256MB
1GB PC3700 memory
Quality: 1024x768, High Quality
Windows:
37.6 fps
Linux: (symlinked libraries, turned on this and that HW adjustment, checked AA etc etc)
29.7 fps
I don't get it... It's SO much slower! Is it because I use LD_PRELOAD for the libGL due to my 2.6.8 kernel? What is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nicom
Guru
Joined: 30 Jan 2003
Posts: 380
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| astaroth_pod wrote: | My results are sadly in line with the Anand review:
Machine:
P4 3Ghz running at 3.3Ghz
Nvidia 5900 Ultra 256MB
1GB PC3700 memory
Quality: 1024x768, High Quality
Windows:
37.6 fps
Linux: (symlinked libraries, turned on this and that HW adjustment, checked AA etc etc)
29.7 fps
I don't get it... It's SO much slower! Is it because I use LD_PRELOAD for the libGL due to my 2.6.8 kernel? What is it? |
You mean, turned on AA, or off? If you turn it on in linux, you'd have to enable it in windows for an accurate comparison, turning on AA generally slows performance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nicom
Guru
Joined: 30 Jan 2003
Posts: 380
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I wish someone would make up a guide for optimising Doom3 in linux, for those too lazy like me to research it too death. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-=GGW=- $ol!d $n4>|e
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 1616
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
it's already in the worx  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eean
Guru
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 355
Location: Kirksville, MO USA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the lone crouton wrote: |
I was comparing cedega to linux-native on the basis that cedega was giving me about the expected fps results that according to many sites I could expect with my hardware if I were running XP |
You realize this assertion is rather humorous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
astaroth_pod
n00b
Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mocnicom wrote: | | You mean, turned on AA, or off? If you turn it on in linux, you'd have to enable it in windows for an accurate comparison, turning on AA generally slows performance. |
Made sure it was off, naturally  Just to be sure all preconditions were exactly the same for windows and linux. But something is amiss... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Given M. Sur
l33t
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Posts: 648
Location: No such file or directory
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| astaroth_pod wrote: | | I don't get it... It's SO much slower! Is it because I use LD_PRELOAD for the libGL due to my 2.6.8 kernel? What is it? |
Read my earlier post, it's SO much slower because it's rendering SO much more of the detail.
Try the benchmarks again in low or medium quality and the speed should be about the same in both Linux and Windows. But, in high quality Windows is much faster than Linux because Windows doesn't render the textures any better than it does in medium quality.
_________________
What is the best [insert-type-of-program-here]? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
astaroth_pod
n00b
Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="00420"] | astaroth_pod wrote: | Read my earlier post, it's SO much slower because it's rendering SO much more of the detail.
Try the benchmarks again in low or medium quality and the speed should be about the same in both Linux and Windows. But, in high quality Windows is much faster than Linux because Windows doesn't render the textures any better than it does in medium quality. |
So, I tried it with 1024x768 medium quality.
Linux: 31.8
Windows: 48.1
Nope, not that. I also rebuild my glibc now, but no difference...
Either the driver is just that much worse, binaries are that much worse, Linux is that much worse, or my system is fscked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-=GGW=- $ol!d $n4>|e
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 1616
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| linux is not that much worse, the drivers arn't that much worse... Give ID time, as people have said before.. Rushed it out and will have another patch. It doesn't even support all the procesor features yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
astaroth_pod
n00b
Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| -=GGW=- $ol!d $n4>|e wrote: | | linux is not that much worse, the drivers arn't that much worse... Give ID time, as people have said before.. Rushed it out and will have another patch. It doesn't even support all the procesor features yet. |
It's almost exactly 50% faster on windows for me, and others are reporting completely different FPS numbers... So it's my setup I'm working on, the binaries are fine for most people  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-=GGW=- $ol!d $n4>|e
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 1616
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the prolem is that it is usng the wrong path for your card. The linux version is not all that good at auto detection. Check out the different options and the tweak guide. Not sure where it is. but it's linked on the demo thread. what kind of card do you have? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
breakerfall
Guru
Joined: 02 Aug 2003
Posts: 509
Location: Manchester, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| -=GGW=- $ol!d $n4>|e wrote: | | linux is not that much worse, the drivers arn't that much worse... Give ID time, as people have said before.. Rushed it out and will have another patch. It doesn't even support all the procesor features yet. |
You're kidding, right? 
It's long overdue, buggy, incosistent (for many different people) and has a half-arsed implemented audio system. They could have used OpenAl or ALSA to give us 5.1 from the beginning. We're paying customers too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wishkah
Guru
Joined: 09 May 2003
Posts: 441
Location: de
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
This proves it again. It's not a bad idea to keep a winxp installation for all the neat little games. GNU/Linux just isn't too good for gaming, and that won't change for the next few years.
_________________
if only I could fill my heart with love... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GhePeU
Guru
Joined: 12 Aug 2003
Posts: 549
Location: Mestre, Italy
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DFanick
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Posts: 78
Location: Norderstedt
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:31 pm Post subject: speed up |
|
|
| When I optimized my system from "-Os" to "-03" with pipe, funroll-loops and fromit-frame-pointer enabled in make.conf ut2004 ran noticeably faster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaosite
Guru
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 540
Location: Right over here.
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SalsaDoom wrote: | Keep in mind, fellas, that we don't get 5.1 sound, only lame 2 channel stereo ;(
Thats taking up less cputime, and giving you a few fps boost. |
Heres a nickel, kid. Go buy yourself a real soundcard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
float-
Apprentice
Joined: 31 Aug 2003
Posts: 174
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaosite wrote: | | SalsaDoom wrote: | Keep in mind, fellas, that we don't get 5.1 sound, only lame 2 channel stereo ;(
Thats taking up less cputime, and giving you a few fps boost. |
Heres a nickel, kid. Go buy yourself a real soundcard. |
ALSA wasn't supported until ID released the patch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kmare
l33t
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 619
Location: Thessaloniki, Greece
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
doom3 is faster (in fps) in linux than in windows (a few more fps). but the most important to me is that it is much much smoother... the gameplay is certainly more pleasant...
running on athlonXP 2700+, 1GB ram, FX5900.
1024x768, full everything with no antialiazing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mlsfit138
Guru
Joined: 20 Sep 2003
Posts: 406
Location: Washington
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2004 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I just got Doom 3 for Christmas and am wondering if I shouldn't open the box. Where do I find these "linux binaries"? Are they on the installation disk?
_________________
"Everytime you justify
another good in you dies"
-Converge, The Saddest Day, Petitioning the Empty Sky |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jengu
Guru
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 384
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2004 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the lone crouton wrote: | | goulash wrote: | | ahaha that cedega vs linux comparison made me laugh |
Yessssss...
I was comparing cedega to linux-native on the basis that cedega was giving me about the expected fps results that according to many sites I could expect with my hardware if I were running XP; obviously the linux-native spanked cedega, that was kinda the point... but if you RTFP I also asked if anyone with the same hardware running windoze could post a better timedemo FPS...
Beat my fps with my HW specs in windoze...
Then tell me Anands 25% less fps in linux is justified. |
Um, ok, then simply stating what your expected fps on windows would be would be enough. The fact remains that your cedega comparison proves absolutely nothing, because it doesn't even come close to recreating the same condition as running the game on an actual windows box. No matter how you 'RTFP' comparing native performance to cedega performance to try to show windows performance is worse is, simply, stupid.
Yes, and I'll get right on that unwinnable challenge. Just send me $3,000 for hardware and I'll take care of it in a jiffy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jengu
Guru
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 384
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2004 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mlsfit138 wrote: | | I just got Doom 3 for Christmas and am wondering if I shouldn't open the box. Where do I find these "linux binaries"? Are they on the installation disk? |
Download them right here
Seriously, you download them. They are not in the box. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
placeholder
Advocate
Joined: 07 Feb 2004
Posts: 2500
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2004 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It is fast enough for me, but I do not have Windows installed in order to compare it. As development continues I would say that it will end up being faster seeing that it looks better in Linux already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Gamers & Players
