bit-tech.net

Gareth Halfacree · 2nd Aug 2012, 08:34

The Linux port of Left 4 Dead 2 runs significantly faster than the Windows version, thanks - Valve claims - to the efficiency of the kernel and OpenGL.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/...-performance/1

Phalanx · 2nd Aug 2012, 08:41

So, what you're ACTUALLY saying, Valve, is DirectX is worse than OpenGL....

We knew that already.

will_123 · 2nd Aug 2012, 08:42

Great news! Just read this on twitter a minute ago. Scary performance increase. Lets hope they can keep improving the performance. Hopefully more devs see that there is gains to be had developing for Linux as well as windows.

GeorgeStorm · 2nd Aug 2012, 08:47

Hopefully it won't be long before all the sources games will be running awesomely

Will be keeping an eye on their progress.

Rich_13 · 2nd Aug 2012, 09:05

To be honest this is a load of rubbish. Did they do like for like performance testing with the same graphics feature sets? I am all in favour for OpenGL support and a AAA grade company focusing on the Linux platform but all the trash talking seems to just be an excuse to build up the platform.

It'll be interesting to see how OpenGL keeps up with developers demands on them. 4.2 is nearly a year old!
http://www.opengl.org/documentation/current_version/

Gareth Halfacree · 2nd Aug 2012, 09:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich_13

It'll be interesting to see how OpenGL keeps up with developers demands on them. 4.2 is nearly a year old! http://www.opengl.org/documentation/current_version/

A year old? My god! Valve should give up on such an outdated platform and dedicate themselves to DirectX11 immediately! You know, the DirectX11 which was released in 2008 - four years ago.

Phalanx · 2nd Aug 2012, 09:24

I remember the days when games used to give you the choice to pick your rendering engine. I always used OpenGL as it was faster and more streamlined. Things haven't changed, apart from lazy developers who want the easy package of DirectX.

impar · 2nd Aug 2012, 09:33

Greetings!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree

A year old? My god! Valve should give up on such an outdated platform and dedicate themselves to DirectX11 immediately! You know, the DirectX11 which was released in 2008 - four years ago.

A bit caustic reply from a staff member but funny anyways.

Gareth Halfacree · 2nd Aug 2012, 09:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by impar

A bit caustic reply from a staff member but funny anyways.

Meh. I'm a freelancer, and I ain't had my morning coffee yet. Plus, I'd say more sarcastic than caustic, but I'm never the best judge of these things.

will_123 · 2nd Aug 2012, 09:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree

Meh. I'm a freelancer, and I ain't had my morning coffee yet. Plus, I'd say more sarcastic than caustic, but I'm never the best judge of these things.

It highly amused me!

XXAOSICXX · 2nd Aug 2012, 09:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by will_123

Scary performance increase.

I would hardly call a ~3.5% increase in performance "scary"...

Guinevere · 2nd Aug 2012, 10:01

303FPS vs 315FPS? (OpenGL figures)

So under these tests linux is 3% faster? And on this game and in this resolution both can generate a higher FPS figure than anyone will ever need?

Nice test Valve, now update your damn tools and game catalogue and test again using a modern game engine!

Still 3% is 3%... it's just a shame that linux is linux.

will_123 · 2nd Aug 2012, 10:03

270 fps to 315 is very impressive in my opinion? maybe scary was not the correct word. But very its a very impressive increase in frame rates.

Gareth Halfacree · 2nd Aug 2012, 10:05

Remember that the Windows OpenGL version only gets 303FPS thanks to work done on the Linux OpenGL version - before that, the best performance was 270FPS from the DirectX version. So you're not looking at a 3% performance increase, but a 16-ish per cent performance increase under Linux/OpenGL compared to Windows/DirectX.

Elton · 2nd Aug 2012, 10:13

I have a feeling it might be attributed to overhead more than anything else.

Action_Parsnip · 2nd Aug 2012, 10:40

What Valve are actually saying is OpenGL is more efficient than DirectX 9. That DX9 is inefficient, was a known fact before this day.

maverik-sg1 · 2nd Aug 2012, 10:49

How important is an increase from 270 to 315fps - I guess if I had a 315hz TV it would be smooth, my eyes can only process around 60fps.

It's interesting because a linux code/OPENGL combo is important for several reasons I suspect - I assume the single most important part will be the ability to fast port PC games based on linux to Android (phones/consoles/tablets), the openGL driver will enable a faster port to iOS (iphone, ipad, imac, ipod).

Microsofts windows8 platform is attempting to gain massive share into the phone/tablet market at the same time the android/linux camp are pushing hard into the consumer PC market.... let teh games begin, but please stop trying to make my PC display look like a smartphone, when I don't use a touchscreen for my PC.

will_123 · 2nd Aug 2012, 11:23

Quote:

How important is an increase from 270 to 315fps - I guess if I had a 315hz TV it would be smooth, my eyes can only process around 60fps.

Maybe its not important in this case but when you are not on a GTX 680 the performance increases from OpenGL could be a very good thing!

Phalanx · 2nd Aug 2012, 11:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Action_Parsnip

What Valve are actually saying is OpenGL is more efficient than DirectX 9. That DX9 is inefficient, was a known fact before this day.

Ah that's a point, L4D is DX9 isn't it, as it runs on XP!

dyzophoria · 2nd Aug 2012, 11:50

after their calling windows 8 a catastrophe because of the windows store, I can't help but wonder if the only reason HL2 is faster is because they wanted it to be faster

)

2nd Aug 2012, 08:34	#1
Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! bit-tech Staff Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Bradford, UK Posts: 1,838	Valve hits Left 4 Dead 2 performance high - on Linux The Linux port of Left 4 Dead 2 runs significantly faster than the Windows version, thanks - Valve claims - to the efficiency of the kernel and OpenGL. http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/...-performance/1 __________________ Co-author, Raspberry Pi User Guide, Meet the Raspberry Pi \| gareth.halfacree.co.uk \| twitter bit-tech news correspondent, Custom PC columnist I'm a filthy freelancer! Hire me!

2nd Aug 2012, 08:41	#2
Phalanx Needs more dragons and stuff. Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Surrey, UK Posts: 3,533	So, what you're ACTUALLY saying, Valve, is DirectX is worse than OpenGL.... We knew that already. __________________ XBOX Live!: Ph4lanx \| Steam: Catachan

2nd Aug 2012, 08:42	#3
will_123 Small childs brain in a big body Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 922	Great news! Just read this on twitter a minute ago. Scary performance increase. Lets hope they can keep improving the performance. Hopefully more devs see that there is gains to be had developing for Linux as well as windows. __________________ i5 3570k @ 4.5GhZ \| Fractal Arc Midi \| H100i \| Twin Frorz 7870 \| 8GB Crosair 1600MhZ \| Website - https://www.kerneltalk.co.uk/ BF3 - Pvt_Will123 Steam - hardcorewillie

2nd Aug 2012, 08:47	#4
GeorgeStorm Aggressive PC Builder Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,016	Hopefully it won't be long before all the sources games will be running awesomely Will be keeping an eye on their progress. __________________ "Anyone who just plays games for fun is a n3rd" - Jörge "I should be in prison for what I'm thinking right now" - Splooshiba My flickr - My blog it'sfilmnotmovie

2nd Aug 2012, 09:05	#5
Rich_13 Hypermodder Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: London Posts: 728	To be honest this is a load of rubbish. Did they do like for like performance testing with the same graphics feature sets? I am all in favour for OpenGL support and a AAA grade company focusing on the Linux platform but all the trash talking seems to just be an excuse to build up the platform. It'll be interesting to see how OpenGL keeps up with developers demands on them. 4.2 is nearly a year old! http://www.opengl.org/documentation/current_version/ __________________ My blog / DSL guide: www.alpagot.co.uk

bit-tech.net

Site Links

Our Other Sites

2nd Aug 2012, 09:24	#7
Phalanx Needs more dragons and stuff. Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Surrey, UK Posts: 3,533	I remember the days when games used to give you the choice to pick your rendering engine. I always used OpenGL as it was faster and more streamlined. Things haven't changed, apart from lazy developers who want the easy package of DirectX. __________________ XBOX Live!: Ph4lanx \| Steam: Catachan

2nd Aug 2012, 10:01	#12
Guinevere Mega mom Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,364	303FPS vs 315FPS? (OpenGL figures) So under these tests linux is 3% faster? And on this game and in this resolution both can generate a higher FPS figure than anyone will ever need? Nice test Valve, now update your damn tools and game catalogue and test again using a modern game engine! Still 3% is 3%... it's just a shame that linux is linux.

2nd Aug 2012, 10:03	#13
will_123 Small childs brain in a big body Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 922	270 fps to 315 is very impressive in my opinion? maybe scary was not the correct word. But very its a very impressive increase in frame rates. __________________ i5 3570k @ 4.5GhZ \| Fractal Arc Midi \| H100i \| Twin Frorz 7870 \| 8GB Crosair 1600MhZ \| Website - https://www.kerneltalk.co.uk/ BF3 - Pvt_Will123 Steam - hardcorewillie

2nd Aug 2012, 10:05	#14
Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! bit-tech Staff Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Bradford, UK Posts: 1,838	Remember that the Windows OpenGL version only gets 303FPS thanks to work done on the Linux OpenGL version - before that, the best performance was 270FPS from the DirectX version. So you're not looking at a 3% performance increase, but a 16-ish per cent performance increase under Linux/OpenGL compared to Windows/DirectX. __________________ Co-author, Raspberry Pi User Guide, Meet the Raspberry Pi \| gareth.halfacree.co.uk \| twitter bit-tech news correspondent, Custom PC columnist I'm a filthy freelancer! Hire me!

2nd Aug 2012, 10:13	#15
Elton Proud Model M User Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: California Posts: 7,809	I have a feeling it might be attributed to overhead more than anything else. __________________ There's good ideas and then there's terribly great ideas.

2nd Aug 2012, 10:40	#16
Action_Parsnip Hypermodder Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Exeter Posts: 719	What Valve are actually saying is OpenGL is more efficient than DirectX 9. That DX9 is inefficient, was a known fact before this day. __________________ "Ooh he card read good!" Q6700@3.475ghz 9x386mhz, Asus P5-B Deluxe WIFI-AP, 2x2gb Kingston 1066 @965mhz 5-5-5-15, western Digital Caviar Black 1tb HDD, Titan Fenrir, PC Power&Cooling 750w, XFX 4890

2nd Aug 2012, 10:49	#17
maverik-sg1 Multimodder Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 171	How important is an increase from 270 to 315fps - I guess if I had a 315hz TV it would be smooth, my eyes can only process around 60fps. It's interesting because a linux code/OPENGL combo is important for several reasons I suspect - I assume the single most important part will be the ability to fast port PC games based on linux to Android (phones/consoles/tablets), the openGL driver will enable a faster port to iOS (iphone, ipad, imac, ipod). Microsofts windows8 platform is attempting to gain massive share into the phone/tablet market at the same time the android/linux camp are pushing hard into the consumer PC market.... let teh games begin, but please stop trying to make my PC display look like a smartphone, when I don't use a touchscreen for my PC.

2nd Aug 2012, 11:50	#20
dyzophoria Supermodder Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home Posts: 305	after their calling windows 8 a catastrophe because of the windows store, I can't help but wonder if the only reason HL2 is faster is because they wanted it to be faster ) __________________ [FONT=Lucida Console]picture this..[/FONT] // [FONT=Tahoma][FONT=Fixedsys]picture that..[/FONT][/FONT]