"Using a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 graphics card with an Intel Core i7 3930K processor, Windows 7 SP1 was running Left 4 Dead 2 with the Direct3D renderer at 270 FPS while under Linux with OpenGL they are now at 315 FPS! Using the OpenGL renderer on Windows isn't also quite as good with its average frame-rate at around 303 FPS" http://www.phoronix....item&px=MTE1MjI http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/
Even with Nvidias poor OpenGL drivers it does pretty good.
Hopefully Valve can get all companies to put more time into their drivers on Linux.
Windows 7 Service Pack 1 64-bit
Ubuntu 12.04 32-bit
we also sped up the OpenGL implementation on Windows. Left 4 Dead 2 is now running at 303.4 FPS with that configuration.
In other words: We just lied to your face when we said it ran at 270 fps.
What this boils down to is not that it runs faster on Linux, but that it runs faster with OpenGL. Which isn't exactly surprising since OpenGL has been faster for as long as I can remember.
More importantly: this is comparing DirectX 9.0c with OpenGL. DX9.0c on Win7 is implemented with a wrapper that has to marshal a lot of data to DX11, which may account for some of the performance difference. Either way, comparing the latest implementation of OpenGL to DX9.0c driver implementations that are probably almost 5 years old is hardly a "fair" test. I'm not sure if the difference in arch (x64 and x86) contributes in either direction, but it still makes it a questionable comparison.
That said, those looking to give Linux free points have never been one for fair tests, anyway.
In other words: We just lied to your face when we said it ran at 270 fps.
What this boils down to is not that it runs faster on Linux, but that it runs faster with OpenGL. Which isn't exactly surprising since OpenGL has been faster for as long as I can remember.
That said, those looking to give Linux free points have never been one for fair tests, anyway.
"We are using a 32-bit version of Linux temporarily and will run on 64-bit Linux later.
Running Left 4 Dead 2 on Windows 7 with Direct3D drivers, we get 270.6 FPS as a baseline. The data is generated from an internal test case."
"This experience lead to the question: why does an OpenGL version of our game run faster than Direct3D on Windows 7? It appears that it’s not related to multitasking overhead. We have been doing some fairly close analysis and it comes down to a few additional microseconds overhead per batch in Direct3D which does not affect OpenGL on Windows. Now that we know the hardware is capable of more performance, we will go back and figure out how to mitigate this effect under Direct3D."
I think a better title would be OpenGL faster then Directx.
I mostly used this news as an excuse to talk about this as we have not had a thread on this.
http://www.phoronix....item&px=MTE1MjI
http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/
Even with Nvidias poor OpenGL drivers it does pretty good.
Hopefully Valve can get all companies to put more time into their drivers on Linux.
In other words: We just lied to your face when we said it ran at 270 fps.
What this boils down to is not that it runs faster on Linux, but that it runs faster with OpenGL. Which isn't exactly surprising since OpenGL has been faster for as long as I can remember.
More importantly: this is comparing DirectX 9.0c with OpenGL. DX9.0c on Win7 is implemented with a wrapper that has to marshal a lot of data to DX11, which may account for some of the performance difference. Either way, comparing the latest implementation of OpenGL to DX9.0c driver implementations that are probably almost 5 years old is hardly a "fair" test. I'm not sure if the difference in arch (x64 and x86) contributes in either direction, but it still makes it a questionable comparison.
That said, those looking to give Linux free points have never been one for fair tests, anyway.
"We are using a 32-bit version of Linux temporarily and will run on 64-bit Linux later.
Running Left 4 Dead 2 on Windows 7 with Direct3D drivers, we get 270.6 FPS as a baseline. The data is generated from an internal test case."
"This experience lead to the question: why does an OpenGL version of our game run faster than Direct3D on Windows 7? It appears that it’s not related to multitasking overhead. We have been doing some fairly close analysis and it comes down to a few additional microseconds overhead per batch in Direct3D which does not affect OpenGL on Windows. Now that we know the hardware is capable of more performance, we will go back and figure out how to mitigate this effect under Direct3D."
I think a better title would be OpenGL faster then Directx.
I mostly used this news as an excuse to talk about this as we have not had a thread on this.
Valve sorta explains the difference.