RTCW linux pathetic compared to windows

starik2 · n00b Joined: 18 Jul 2006 Posts: 20

Native RTCW Linux v 1.41 and native Windows 1.41. I tested both in single player mode, on several different maps. Same settings (in fact, identical wolfconfig.cfg files). Same pak files shared by both.

On the same linux PC, windows version (running via Wine) has consistently TWICE the framerate than native linux version. I've taken screenshots of both and the graphic detail is identical, except windows version is somewhat brighter.

The conclusion?

The must've put sleep() calls into linux build. :roll:

This is exactly the kind of crap that gives linux a bad gaming reputation. If developers dont know how to port, they should give it to someone who does.

lumberjack · n00b Joined: 21 Mar 2005 Posts: 54 Location: germany

This is exactly the kind of crap that gives trolls a bad posting reputation. If trolls dont know how to post, they should give it to someone who does.
_________________
i'm too lazy to make a signature.

xanas3712 · Guru Joined: 15 Oct 2004 Posts: 455

How was that trolling? Not that it was entirely useful, but how was it trolling?

Hyper_Eye · Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:57 am Post subject:

I don't think it was trolling. At first I thought he was comparing running in Windows and running in Linux with identical configs which would have been a completely relevant comparison. But, he is actually comparing the Linux version to running in wine and that is even more relevant. The idea that the Windows version runs better under wine then the native Linux version is just pathetic. There is absolutely no reason for this whatsoever.
_________________
Gentoo Gaming Videos

Darkael · Veteran Joined: 10 Aug 2004 Posts: 1321 Location: France

What was the framerate on the native version? If I remember correctly, the linux version has a framerate limit (I think it was around 80), you can raise it with some cvar variable.

But even if the linux version is indeed slower than the windows one, I fail to see how a game which is five years old is relevant to discussing the state of the art in linux gaming.

Hyper_Eye · Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:24 pm Post subject:

Vla · Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:40 am Post subject:

Make sure to set com_maxfps 0 (or was it sv_maxfps?) Try it out if you have not done already.

starik2 · n00b Joined: 18 Jul 2006 Posts: 20

maxfps is 85 by default. if i had at least 50 i wouildnt even bring this up. But, the fact is, i get anywhere from 20-35 fps on linux and windows is 80+.

Well, i guess it's time to simply throw money at the issue and kill it with the new hardware (1900 XTX). WIth that card even a handicapped linux version will fly!

tychver · n00b Joined: 14 Aug 2006 Posts: 19

What video card are you using and what drivers for each test?

starik2 · n00b Joined: 18 Jul 2006 Posts: 20

the video card and drivers are irrelevant, because i am comparing native linux client vs windows client running in wine (on the _same_ linux box). Therefore they will be using the same nvidia drivers/xserver, etc. I do NOT run windows O/S.

but since you ask, it's onboard 6150 and Nvidia 8774 drivers.

Doogman · Apprentice Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 244

You better do some research if you are buying an ATI card and expect performance. The ATI Linux drivers aren't rumoured to be the greatest.

I'm not sure why you are seeing such a difference in performance. Back in the day when RTCW came out, there certainly wasn't that kind of difference in framerates between Win & Linux. After all, it's just based off the Q3 engine. Nowadays, with my current hardware, I just hit the framerate cap when I try wolf.

tychver · n00b Joined: 14 Aug 2006 Posts: 19

A 6150 should have plenty of power to spare running RTCW. I play a fair bit of RTCW:ET on linux and I only had framerate problems when I was using a Radeon 7500 35MB. I also suspect that the port is highly unoptimised. Even with an Nvidia 5900XT RTCW:ET was unplayable on a Pentium 3 based system with 512mb of RAM. The 5900XT promptly went in my Atlon 64 2800+ based system with 1GB RAM. And can I recommend you don't get an ATI X1x00. They are very badly supported under the ATI drivers and there are currently no plans to develop an opensource driver for them, unlike anything up to an X850XT, which already has working openGL-1.0 support and the drivers are improving rapidly.

Doogman · Apprentice Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 244

I played a ton of RtCW and ET with just a Nvidia Ti4200 and it worked fine. You should be able to easily hold >60 FPS for most maps with this card or the equivilant.

Here's the only Linux vs Windows ET benchmarks I could find:

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2114

On the same hardware, the Windows ET client outperforms the native Linux ET client but not nearly as much as your are seeing. It's a old article, so it's hard to say how modern Nvidia drivers would help.

Anyway, the last Win vs Lin benchies I did were for Doom3. On my system, the difference was ~ 2 FPS.

Vla · Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:43 am Post subject:

I will have a look into this. I wonder if I can reproduce this, too. Will report back later.
But isn't this a great example for the current wine development progress currently made?

drbenway · n00b Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 56

Here is my take :-

Every game that has both a Windows and Linux client version is faster in Linux on my machine - Athlon-XP 3000 - Geforce 4 ti 4200.

This includes

ET - (so much faster on Linux - much easier to shot people too !)
Quake4
Legends
Armerica's Army
Nexuiz

Weirdly Max payne and call of duty through wine is also much faster on Linux

Here are my benchmarks for Doom 3 - timedemo1 - 800x600 - medium detail.

Suse 10.1 - 32.2 fps
Gentoo - 34 fps
Kubuntu - 30.1 fps
Windows - 26.8 fps

- this is with lastest drivers (both windows and Linux)
_________________
Studies show that 9 out of 10 paedophiles use Windows ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doogman · Apprentice Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 244

The weird thing about starik2's post was that the window client of ET worked faster in wine than the native Linux client of ET on the same hardware. I suppose the interesting test would be to run the window's client of ET in genuine Windows and compare that with wine.

Not all Linux clients are the best, after all UT2004 runs faster in windows. Of course with that game and today's hardware it's not that a big a deal anymore.

gestah · n00b Joined: 22 Sep 2004 Posts: 40

tychver · n00b Joined: 14 Aug 2006 Posts: 19

There's got to actually be something wrong there. I never had any troubles with ET on even a Radeon 7500 32MB and a 1.6GHz Duron. The linux port will interface with your system differently than when running the game through wine. As of yet we don't actually have much else other than your word for your findings either. Confirm that theres a problem with RTCW, work with the maintainers. Eliminate the runtime environment as the problem. Else, stop wasting other people's time.

*Tychver runs and puts on flame retardent suit.

drbenway · n00b Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 56

I think the best thing to do would be to try other games also and see if you have the same issue.

It could well be a config issue - i.e are you using AGPGART or NVAGP - AGPGART seems much faster for me .

You should also look at your kernel config options, if you have access copy over a generic config from another linux distro and compile the kernel (and install nvidia driver) and try again to see if that helps.
_________________
Studies show that 9 out of 10 paedophiles use Windows ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phenax · l33t Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 972

I get more FPS on Quake 4 then I do on Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory..

Zubzub · Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:34 pm Post subject:

tychver · n00b Joined: 14 Aug 2006 Posts: 19

I also get more FPS in Quake4 than I do in ET. ET's engine seems to have some serious flaws, We do have to bear in mind that the game was released half done.