valve Valve cranks up Linux gaming, makes it faster than Windows

[simplezz]

  On 02/08/2012 at 17:11, HawkMan said:

I like some actual evidence of this. as all my experience shows that the linux kernel is not more efficient than the NT kernel(the NT kernel is newer tech with some stuff that the linux kernel should have had but doesn't).

The fact that everything from supercomputers to your router runs on GNU/Linux is probably good enough evidence.

  On 02/08/2012 at 17:11, HawkMan said:

and OpenGL I've never on any system see perform better than D3D. I've seen it perform more stable with illegal meshes(basically handling more error before crashing and burning) but not outperforming.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft's implementation, which only supports the 1.1 spec, is trash. Not sure about how good Nvidia, AMD, or Intel's Windows implementations are. That could be the reason why you haven't seen good performance from it. Give Linux and Doom3 a try. It runs well on my machine.

[guitmz]

yes, that's a good point! the possibilities for OpenGL are endless... way more promissing than for D3D. Direct3D will keep living on Xbox, but OpenGL for PC seems a lot more interesting

[Dashel]

There is a reason D3D has been the defacto standard for many, many years. MS (smartly) spends lots of development on this. Just optimizing for OGL isn't the solution, they need a more comprehensive framework.

I'm all for it. I'd like the choice of a non-Windows alternative just in case.

[simplezz]

  On 02/08/2012 at 17:12, fenderMarky said:

I guess they changed something like

for(int i=0; i<1000000; i++)

into

for(int i=0; i<100; i++)

Oh it's faster! The system which is going to compete with our market is a sh*t!

Read FAIL!

The bottle neck they said, was Direct3D's batch processing, not their own code. Maybe Microsoft needs to do a better job with DX's performance in the future.

[ObiWanToby]

I know when the source engine first appeared on OS X, visual quality was lacking. I am just suspicious of these results. If the visual quality is exactly the same, then this is impressive. This includes all features including AA AF any other technologies like HBAO.

I remember a time when some games allowed you to choose between OpenGL and D3D. That was early on though.

[simplezz]

  On 02/08/2012 at 17:12, Melfster said:

Personally I think its waste of money for valve, unless they are building their one console then it would make sense for them to optimize for Linux.

Millions of people use GNU/Linux. If only ten percent of those buy some steam games, it'll be a win for them. And it also gives them more options down the road with a steambox should they want to do that.

[Syanide]

  On 02/08/2012 at 17:12, Melfster said:

Personally I think its waste of money for valve, unless they are building their one console then it would make sense for them to optimize for Linux.

My guess is this is exactly the case.

[HawkMan]

  On 02/08/2012 at 17:19, simplezz said:

The fact that everything from supercomputers to your router runs on GNU/Linux is probably good enough evidence.

Actually it's not. different purposes for different systems. seriously if you don't understand the difference of that completely irrelevant(there are better words, but) statement, then there's no point arguing this with you because you lack even the most basic knowledge to discuss anything computer and tech related. beyong "I like Linux nd windows sux"

[Jaybonaut]

Gee wiz, let's all abandon Windows and jump on Linux.... bleh

[f0rk_b0mb]

  On 02/08/2012 at 17:05, z0phi3l said:

No, there are people who will NEVER use anything but Windows, just look at any thread involving Linux or OS X, it always devolves to Windows fanboys bashing everything and anything not Windows, performance enhancements like mentioned here are of no concern to them.

I see your point. This is really good news though to people that just want to play their games and have fun.

[funkydude]

The problem here is comparing DX9 to OpenGL, considering DX9 is a decade old, it's expected that recent versions of OpenGL will outclass it. What they need to do is compare DX11 to OpenGL. DX11 is proven to be more efficient than DX9, and has brought performance benefits to various games. The real shame here is Valve hasn't spent any time at all working on DX11, infact, they still maintain DX8 in TF2 for the ~2% of players.

As a Linux and Windows user, I'm genuinely interested to see how OpenGL compares to DX11, as I've yet to find any real comparisons. If they can prove that OpenGL gaming is more efficient than DX11 gaming, especially the even further improved DX11.1 in Windows 8, that's when I'll consider using Linux for gaming.

[HawkMan]

  On 02/08/2012 at 17:23, simplezz said:

Millions of people use GNU/Linux. If only ten percent of those buy some steam games, it'll be a win for them. And it also gives them more options down the road with a steambox should they want to do that.

Let's assume 10% of those linux people are interested in running games on their hardware at all (probably 1 times inflated but we'll go with it for now). The you make a game. it's a strategy game. ok, only 10% of the linux gamers are actually interested in strategy. It's a SciFi strategy game, only 10% of the 10% of the 10% are interested in SciFi. oh and it's a tactical turn based strategy game, only 5% of the 10% of the 10% of the 10% are interested in this type of strategy game.

You starting to see the issue here. you can't just make a gaje and expect that all gamers on the platform will want it, that's not how it works. then every windows game would sell hundreds of millions.

[simplezz]

  On 02/08/2012 at 17:15, ViperAFK said:

OpenGL isn't any less powerful than D3D, its just that D3D is easier to develop for.

Have you ever used COM? Uh, I have and thank god I never have to use it again.

OpenGL is much easier to develop for if you write C code or want your code to be portable in any way, that's for sure.

[HawkMan]

  On 02/08/2012 at 17:27, funkydude said:

The problem here is comparing DX9 to OpenGL, considering DX9 is a decade old, it's expected that recent versions of OpenGL will outclass it. What they need to do is compare DX11 to OpenGL. DX11 is proven to be more efficient than DX9, and has brought performance benefits to various games. The real shame here is Valve hasn't spent any time at all working on DX11, infact, they still maintain DX8 in TF2 for the ~2% of players.

As a Linux and Windows user, I'm genuinely interested to see how OpenGL compares to DX11, as I've yet to find any real comparisons. If they can prove that OpenGL gaming is more efficient than DX11 gaming, especially the even further improved DX11.1 in Windows 8, that's when I'll consider using Linux for gaming.

It's it more important that the devs want to consider it. which is unlikely as DX is a lto easier. has a hugely bigger market. and windows is also a lot easier to develop for than linux.

[guitmz]

  On 02/08/2012 at 17:22, ObiWanToby said:

I remember a time when some games allowed you to choose between OpenGL and D3D. That was early on though.

I always choose OpenGL on Counter-Strike hahahaha

[HawkMan]

  On 02/08/2012 at 17:31, simplezz said:

Have you ever used COM? Uh, I have and thank god I never have to use it again.

OpenGL is much easier to develop for if you write C code or want your code to be portable in any way, that's for sure.

to bad coding in OpenGL doesn't make your code portable. in fact porting between graphics systems is probably the easiest part. the hard part is coding the actual game code. and for most developers. they'll be using a licensed engine anyway that often lets them switch between them with the flip of an compiler argument

It's always funny when people make it sound like coding in(for technically) OpenGL instantly makes your games portable... :)

[simplezz]

  On 02/08/2012 at 17:27, funkydude said:

The problem here is comparing DX9 to OpenGL, considering DX9 is a decade old

90% of PC games are just console ports these days, hence why DX9 is the shipping backend. Sure you might get updates that provide support for newer versions, but those are few and far between. And remember if anything, DX9 runs faster than new versions because of less features. Just try a DX9 version of a game vs a DX11 one, you'll get a lower fps on average on DX11.

  On 02/08/2012 at 17:27, funkydude said:

As a Linux and Windows user, I'm genuinely interested to see how OpenGL compares to DX11, as I've yet to find any real comparisons. If they can prove that OpenGL gaming is more efficient than DX11 gaming, especially the even further improved DX11.1 in Windows 8, that's when I'll consider using Linux for gaming.

Windows/Xbox games ship with old DX versions, and Linux, OS X, iOS, and Android all ship with the latest OpenGL, that's just how the world works. No point in changing the goal posts here.

[guitmz]

indeed!

[simplezz]

  On 02/08/2012 at 17:35, HawkMan said:

It's always funny when people make it sound like coding in(for technically) OpenGL instantly makes your games portable... :)

It's a fact. OpenGL runs on virtually every platform, and Microsoft's Direct3D runs on Windows and XBox that's it. COM code isn't portable anywhere. It's a mess of proprietary platform specific lock in.

[Mr. Gibs]

  Quote

90% of PC games are just console ports these days, hence why DX9 is the shipping backend. Sure you might get updates that provide support for newer versions, but those are few and far between. And remember if anything, DX9 runs faster than new versions before of less features. Just try a DX9 version of a game vs a DX11 one, you'll get a lower fps on average.

Actually no. DX11 / 10 runs faster than DX9 if the game is originally coded for it.

But since the game is originally coded for DX9 (or the 360) and then ported over and then a few additional features added in to make it dx10 compatible is where the performance hit comes from.

Source is a vastly out of date engine anyways, sure it still looks decent but at its very core its still an engine made in 2000 that's just been added on to.

John Carmack (giant openGL fan) has said that DX10 / 11 is better than OpenGL is. And let's not forget, to get OpenGL to the same feature set as DirectX requires a huge amount of extensions (and the effort required to get them to all work nicely with each other).

  Quote

Windows from 8 on is going to be much different. isn't going to be the same powerful desktop OS that we've grown to love, sure windows 8 still has part of that, but it seems to be going away. You keep speaking of the old windows, and the old linux.

Jesus christ, no it isn't any different. You can use Windows 8 the exact same way you used Windows 7 (minus the start screen). Your beloved x86 / x86-64 apps will still run just as they did before (maybe with a little performance boost if anything). You can still install all the games you want from Steam and they work just fine.

Now if you're on WinRT (the ARM version) then yes all your apps have to come from the Microsoft store but it's not like Steam / Origins will end up on WinRT because face it 100% of their games won't work on ARM.

[ahhell]

  On 02/08/2012 at 17:38, muggerfugger said:

I don't think you're allowing your brain to open up to see whats going on here. Windows from 8 on is going to be much different. isn't going to be the same powerful desktop OS that we've grown to love, sure windows 8 still has part of that, but it seems to be going away. You keep speaking of the old windows, and the old linux.

AHHAHAHAH Come on dude, get real. Win 8 is no ****ing different than Win 7. It just has a slightly different GUI. Big ****ing deal. The underlying guts of the OS are even more streamlined than 7.

:s

[Skulltrail]

OpenGL could make a comeback. If OpenGL can bring the firepower to developers that DX11 currently brings, Windows 7 will lose its monopoly in the gaming industry. OpenGL is supported by all of the major operating systems, which would only increase the number of potential customers for developers. All they need to do is transition from DirectX to OpenGL and enjoy the 3-way handjob (Windows, Mac, Linux).

[guitmz]

above from above: No

[Skulltrail]

  On 02/08/2012 at 17:54, guitmz said:

^ No

No what?

[simplezz]

  On 02/08/2012 at 17:44, -Razorfold said:

Actually no. DX11 / 10 runs faster than DX9 if the game is coded for it.

Not from my experience. I have CIV V which runs much faster with the DX9 binary than the DX11 one. DX11's features are more demanding, hence the lower fps on average.

  On 02/08/2012 at 17:44, -Razorfold said:

But since the game is originally coded for DX9 (or the 360) and then ported over and then a few additional features added in to make it dx10 compatible is where the performance hit comes from.

That's probably true for some games where DX10/11 is an afterthought. I'd be interested in seeing some benchmarks to clear the issue up. I can only speak from personal experience with games like CIV V and Crysis 2.

  On 02/08/2012 at 17:44, -Razorfold said:

Source is a vastly out of date engine anyways, sure it still looks decent but at its very core its still an engine made in 2000 that's just been added on to.

The Linux kernel was made in the early 1990's, and has been added to ever since, but that doesn't make it outdated does it? Windows 7/8 probably has parts which were written in the late 90's/early 2k's, but that doesn't make Windows 7/8 outdated does it? Not everything needs a complete rewrite to be in-date does it?

  On 02/08/2012 at 17:52, ahhell said:

The underlying guts of the OS are even more streamlined than 7.

:s

How do you know? Do you access to the source code?