Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Review of Doom 3 on Linux

Posted by Zonk on from the comparing-windows-to-penguins dept.

yamla writes "Doom 3 was released for Linux sometime last week. LinuxHardware.org decided to test how well it runs compared to the Windows version. Read the article here, including some technical information from the id Software employee who did the Linux port, Timothee Besset." AnandTech has a similar review available.

3 of 41 comments (clear)

  1. Executive summary (=for the lazy who don't RTFA) by forged · · Score: 5, Informative
    • only nVidia GPUs are supported now. ATI's are just not supported by ID at this point in time
    • the same features are supported on both platforms
    • the win32 version is noticeably (25-50%) faster when using higher-end video hardware than the linux version
    • in lower quality settings, both versions are about the same.

    That's it folks. For more boring details, well RTFA :)

  2. Re:Executive summary (=for the lazy who don't RTFA by mobets · · Score: 5, Informative

    You forgot to mention that a large part of this performance difference is likely due to the lack of SSE2 instructions in the linux version. This will be fixed as he finishes porting the ASM from the windows source.

    --

    It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
  3. Re:Executive summary (=for the lazy who don't RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    They look quite different on the different platforms anyway (in general the Linux version looks worse)

    Maybe you should look again.

    From the article:
    The final graphics point we'd like to point out may be the most important, especially when comparing the Windows to Linux benchmarks. Going back to the full-size screenshots shown above, when comparing the Windows to Linux images, you can tell that at both low and medium quality settings the images seem to produce comparable results. When moving to high quality though, the Linux output does not match the Windows output. If you pay attention to the rock area highlighted by the flashlight, the image is much improved under Linux. When looking at the Windows output, the high quality image is indistinguishable from the medium quality output. This may explain some of the speed differences between Linux and Windows at high quality. It is unknown why the two operating systems are treating this setting differently.

    So not only does the linux version look better, but that's part of the reason it's running slower.