Is Doom 3 Faster on Windows?

nick58b · Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 5:29 pm Post subject: Is Doom 3 Faster on Windows?

According to an Anandtech article I just read, Doom 3 runs faster on Windows XP than on Linux (well, SUSE Linux).

Imek · Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 5:34 pm Post subject:

For me, it was about the same; It was maybe an FPS or two faster in Linux, with the same configuration as Windows. And that was before I optimised it by symlinking libraries and such. As far as I know SuSE is a pretty bloated distro, perhaps they were using old NVIDIA drivers or had AGP or Fast Writes off or somesuch.

EDIT: Okay, maybe not. It seems to differ between different users for no obvious reason, but I still blame SuSE.
_________________
- I
(very old) "Current" desktop | Adopt an unanswered post today!

RyecoAaron · n00b Joined: 11 Oct 2004 Posts: 16

Although Linux Hardware agreed with Anandtech and they used 64-bit Gentoo on AMD 64. After reading their article, I think there is quite a bit the ID can do to make it faster (ie gcc optimizations, use SSE2, etc...)

http://www.linuxhardware.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/12/1725246&mode=thread

G.N.A. · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 15 Mar 2004 Posts: 81

Must faster for me.. I couldn't get it running in Linux..

GNA

Wolven · Guru Joined: 05 Aug 2003 Posts: 325 Location: Norway

For me it's slower in Gentoo (About half the FPS) But it's just as fast as Windows on Debian. (Sarge)

sgaap · Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:17 pm Post subject:

Its a bit slower for me in linux than in windows (a few frames so it must be hardly noticeable), but I do feel that that the fps interval is a bit larger (eg more difference between the lowest and highest fps)

I do feel however that the doom3 linux client is lacking a bit when it comes to optimization, which is a bit bad because quake3 ran better out-of-the-box on linux than on windows

But hey, I'll give id the benifit of doubt and hope that thibgs will get better with future releases (also when it comes to alsa support, oss is simply too old te be used)

//edit
something interesting was that the tests revealed that image quality on linux @ high quality was better than on windows, maybe this is somewhat of an explanation for the difference in speed
_________________
In "old" Europe we already have a word for "pre-emptive strikes" mr Bush: its called "war"

PZoned · Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:29 pm Post subject:

Yes... it should be faster in windows by default.... but who really runs default? us linux people are known for tweaking the crap out of everything... i say if they ran a customized Gentoo kernel and openbox, using every tweak possible, linux may be significantly faster.... I get more fps in all my games than i ever did in suse 9.1... so gentoo should run doom3 faster than suse too.

John5788 · Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:29 am Post subject:

i read somewhere that the linux binaries are supposed to run faster than the windows ones from some site.
_________________
John5788

SalsaDoom · Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:45 am Post subject:

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.

--SD

-=GGW=- $ol!d $n4>|e · Veteran Joined: 12 Apr 2004 Posts: 1616 Location: USA

keep in mind as well that 90% of people cant tell the difference in sound!

mahdi · Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:32 pm Post subject:

archsvile · Apprentice Joined: 16 Jun 2004 Posts: 164 Location: PA

for me its much faster... same with my friends :twisted:

_________________
Site: http://moth.homelinux.com/~archsvile
Aim: archsvile
yahoo: archsvile

dalamarou · n00b Joined: 05 Apr 2004 Posts: 3

If I turn EVERYTHING UP to 1600x1200 ULTRA mode with 16x AAF and vsync, I get 47.2 on timedemo demo1

There are some slowdowns with these settings, so I tried at 1280x1024 ULTRA no AA and sync:
gives 47.4 with same slowdowns (they aren't noticeable outside of timedemo)

What I play with is HIGH 1280x1024 => 54.4

In windows, I wouldn't ANYWHERE near these kind of numbers.

My trick was to use my own libraries instead of those that come with doom3.

Dal

(I do have a good comp though)
BFGtech 6800GT
P4 3.2 Prescott
ASUS P4C800-E
1024 Ram (Corsair Super TWINX LL stuff)
10k rpm 8mb Cache HD
MX700 mouse
and the cheapest keyboard in the world

gozu · n00b Joined: 04 Jan 2003 Posts: 55

Its about 10 fps faster for me in windows (timedemo demo1) What kernel/kernel settings are you guys using? Ive tried alot to get it faster and it just doesnt get any faster :'( I have 6800nu.

zzats · Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:29 am Post subject:

out of interest, has anybody tried to run doom3 with different kernels?

I mean, with a 2.4-series kernel and nvidia 5336 or 4496 and benchmarked it against a 2.6-kernel (with 4kstacks and other nice things) with nvidia 6111?

Symlinking libraries brought my performance from 29FPS to 31FPS with timedemo, and fast writes & side-band addressing from 31FPS to 32FPS .. so there's still some to gain I guess..

if any of you haven't tried the older nvidia drivers (which only work with 2.4-kernels), I'm going to give them a shot.. I recall them giving significantly better performance to half of the users and worse to the other half..

And have you guys really tried to 'optimize' your systems? Running X for doom alone, etc, freeing as much memory as possible?

Given M. Sur · Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:47 am Post subject:

Well according to the review on slashdot today the windows version is a little faster, especially with high quality. The primary reasons though are the linux binaries do not yet have SSE2 optimizations, and the windows version doesn't display the textures correctly in high quality.

The high-quality windows textures look the same as the medium-quality ones, whereas the high-quality linux ones blow the medium ones away. The developers aren't sure why windows isn't displaying the textures correctly.
_________________
What is the best [insert-type-of-program-here]?

PZoned · Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:40 pm Post subject:

ID is still expecting about a 10% speed increase in the linux binaries next release (when they sort out the CPU bugs)

feld · Guru Joined: 29 Aug 2004 Posts: 593 Location: WI, USA

really? could u link that info? just wondering about your source..

i did read originally in an interview on linux-games.com (i think) that john said himself that linux should achieve 33% more performance under stress than the windows version.

cant wait to actually see that then, and watch the windows n00bs cry, whine, and make excuses for their poor performing XPs.

-Feld

breakerfall · Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:06 am Post subject:

I should imagine they would be right after reading all the Doom3 posts here. However, last install of Suse that I did a couple of months ago, was extremely slow by default. It's a generic install so it works with pretty much everything. I was running it on an older computer than handles Win98 fine and it was slooooow when running the Xfce4 DE.

ephex · n00b Joined: 05 Sep 2004 Posts: 31 Location: USA

who cares how well doom 3 runs on gentoo if i can't hear anything.

i hope they implement alsa support

-=GGW=- $ol!d $n4>|e · Veteran Joined: 12 Apr 2004 Posts: 1616 Location: USA

just enable 0SS emulation in alsa... its not that hard man

the lone crouton · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 11 Aug 2003 Posts: 119

Faster in Windows? My arse.

Under cvscedega:
CPU: XP2600 @ stock
GPU: Leadtek 6800GT @ stock
RAM: 512MB PC2700
Kernel: 2.6.7-ck2
Driver: 6111
Res: 1280x1024x24xHighQuality

FPS: 34.5

[EDIT:] This is about what, from various sites, my fps would be on a windoze box with these HW specs.

Linux native:
CPU: XP2600 @ stock
GPU: Leadtek 6800GT @ stock
RAM: 512MB PC2700
Kernel: 2.6.7-ck2
Driver: 6111
Res: 1280x1024x24xHighQuality

FPS: 45.5

Now I checked the [H] benchies when they first came out, and they were about right for my setup. Someone show me a timedemo1 (cached - 2nd run) that's better than this in M$ for the same hardware...

And this is without gcc/sse optimisation. Go ahead, prove me wrong. But it aint gonna be a 25% deficit like Anand said.

Oh, and the linux binaries installed in about 5 seconds, sound works, everything works, no problems whatsoever.

Good job TTimo!

_________________
All effort is useless.

-=GGW=- $ol!d $n4>|e · Veteran Joined: 12 Apr 2004 Posts: 1616 Location: USA

of coarse its going to be slower under cedega.. thats a windows EMULATOR. and they didn't add any specific optimizations for it because they knew that a native version was coming out soon and did not wan't to reinforce the precedent that linux ports arn't needed because cedega does it for companies....

my score
under 800x600 no vsync no af 6111 drivers.
timedemo 1 second run
windows 49.3
linux 34.5

eean · Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:53 am Post subject:

goulash · Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 5:15 am Post subject:

ahaha that cedega vs linux comparison made me laugh