How OpenGL Graphics Card Performance Has Evolved Over 10 Years (phoronix.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How OpenGL Graphics Card Performance Has Evolved Over 10 Years (phoronix.com)

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday January 19, 2016 @08:00AM from the spoiler:-it's-gotten-better dept.

An anonymous reader writes: A new report at Phoronix looks at the OpenGL performance of 27 graphics cards from the GeForce 8 through GeForce 900 series. Various Ubuntu OpenGL games were tested on these graphics cards dating back to 2006, focusing on raw performance and power efficiency. From oldest to newest, there was a 72x increase in performance-per-Watt, and a 100x increase in raw performance. The NVIDIA Linux results arrive after doing a similar AMD comparison from R600 graphics cards through the R9 Fury. However, that analysis found that for many of the older graphics cards, their open-source driver support regressed into an unworkable state. For the cards that did work, the performance gains were not nearly as significant over time.

115 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Phoronix = OSNews by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 08:05 · Score: -1

Phoronix is the new OSNews clickwhore. Brought to you by dimensionless graphs, and the letter Fail.
1. Re:Phoronix = OSNews by Ravaldy · 2016-01-19 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  Can you just go away. People like you that make dumb comments like this add nothing to the discussion. Avoid the article and move on.
2. Re:Phoronix = OSNews by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  Avoid the article
  It's really pretty interesting. We'll worth your time.
3. Re:Phoronix = OSNews by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 08:24 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Comments like this is why I visit /. less often nowadays.
4. Re:Phoronix = OSNews by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 08:37 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Not really that interesting.
  Summary: Older video cards are slower than newer video cards, but linux still a piece of shit.
5. Re:Phoronix = OSNews by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 08:47 · Score: -1
  
  Maybe if more people tell the truth you will fuck off to the prohonix forums forever.
6. Re:Phoronix = OSNews by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  And what did you add to the discussion? You fed a troll and are part of the problem as I see it.
7. Re:Phoronix = OSNews by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  More likely I'll just get up from the sofa and does something useful instead.
8. Re:Phoronix = OSNews by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 15:41 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. There's times I think they're attempting to do this themselves (owners/moderators) by ac trolling posts to spur flamewars which they claim they don't want and yet sockpuppetry goes on here like mad from karma farmers with multiple accounts for minus modding for the easily cheated moderation system here that's only used for furthering their own agendas or those of their allies and nothing more.
9. Re:Phoronix = OSNews by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 21:55 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe if you keep being a shitbag, someone will slit your throat and you'll die.
10. Re:Phoronix = OSNews by Ravaldy · 2016-01-20 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Welcome to the club.
My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 08:09 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Linux is just not very good for games, Windows has much better technology when it comes to computer graphics, this is why the xbox is based on windows technology and not free hand-me-down college project stuff.
Hey, you have to pay for quality. But I think it's a good effort by the linux folks to try and teach poors about computers.
1. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Ravaldy · 2016-01-19 08:21 · Score: 2
  
  Linux has much less overhead and is often tailored to squeeze every ounce of power out of it's hardware. MS is a little more loose in that it will cater to as much hardware as possible at the cost of performance.
  Linux if built for specific hardware can achieve much better performance than Windows in it's current state. I say current state because Xbox is an example where Windows could be optimized to perform for specific software hence avoid all the extra validation that eats up the hardware.
2. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by vux984 · 2016-01-19 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Linux is just not very good for games. Windows has much better technology when it comes to computer graphics
  Linux is weaker because its a *relatively* unpredictable platform to target by comparison to windows, and crucial driver performance optimizations lag behind, or simply aren't done by the vendors; due to the relative demand/marketshare and that fact that companies have limited resources..
  
  this is why the xbox is based on windows technology
  That's mostly because the xbox is made by microsoft.
  
  and not free hand-me-down college project stuff.
  PS4 Orbis is based on FreeBSD. (Remember what the B in BSD stands for? Hint... think 'names of colleges'.)
  Troll grade: FAIL
3. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by 110010001000 · 2016-01-19 08:24 · Score: 2
  
  That might have been true 10 years ago, but at this point I doubt it.
4. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  That must mean BSD is a really great platform for gaming?
  I will download it now and hopefully get a few more FPS out of Fallout 4.
  Oh wait you mean Sony used an open source bootloader to bootstrap their proprietary drivers and APIs, and that there really is no open source magic secret sauce that makes gaming worth anyones time?
  Windows 10 is 10/10
5. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Ravaldy · 2016-01-19 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Which part?
6. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Sable+Drakon · 2016-01-19 08:32 · Score: 0
  
  Linux may be more effcient, but OpenGL really isn't. Not from a development perspective. The big push to DirectX happened because OpenGL was just a royal pain in the ass to develop with. Where as DirectX is fully documented and has a massive support community, OpenGL is a lot like the wild west. You may have some documentation, but there's no central repository of knowledge for troubleshooting and assistance. Plus the state of graphics drivers under Linux makes it an extra special brand of hell for anyone porting a game over to it.
  
  --
  The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
7. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by 110010001000 · 2016-01-19 08:35 · Score: 2
  
  All of it. Most performance improvements are in the driver side, and drivers for Windows are more performant than Linux versions in general. Windows isn't as bloated as it used to be. The fact that you can run Windows 10 on a 2GB tablet with pretty good performance is a testament to this. You should choose Linux because it is Open, not for performance reasons.
8. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  Linux is bloated and hacked. That's why FreeBSD is chosen for all professional projects that require high-performance graphics, such as OS X and PlayStation 4.
9. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-01-19 08:41 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The big push to DirectX happened because OpenGL was just a royal pain in the ass to develop with.
  Not quite. OpenGL was an alterative to the software rendering modes that most video games had in the early days. Once gamers saw Quake running in OpenGL in 1997, they ran out to the stores to buy OpenGL-compatible video cards. Microsoft didn't have an alternative API to compete with OpenGL. Hence, DirectX was born. It took a handful of years before DirectX stopped being a royal pain in the ass for most gamers.
10. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by MobyDisk · 2016-01-19 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Even if that is true, it is irrelevant in a comparison of video games, where a quality video card driver is almost exclusively the only relevant factor.
11. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Ravaldy · 2016-01-19 08:47 · Score: 2
  
  All of it. Most performance improvements are in the driver side, and drivers for Windows are more performant than Linux versions in general. Windows isn't as bloated as it used to be. The fact that you can run Windows 10 on a 2GB tablet with pretty good performance is a testament to this.
  But the tablet version of Windows 10 is probably not the best example since it's been optimized for the hardware (drivers). And as I stated, until you've come across a sandboxing issue, you don't know how much validation is actually being done. This applies to Windows 10 as well.
  
  You should choose Linux because it is Open, not for performance reasons.
  I totally agree with this. It still doesn't put Linux behind Windows performance wise. As a mainstream desktop OS Linux simply hasn't lived to the expectations of users and that's why Windows is still doing very well.
12. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Ambassador+Kosh · 2016-01-19 08:52 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Actually the grandparent is right. Windows has gotten much more performance over the last few versions. With Windows 7 MATLAB ran about 20% faster on Linux than Windows. With Windows 8 the Windows version was very slightly faster and with Windows 10 the different is about 5% now in favor of windows.
  Overall I suspect it is nothing magical. Microsoft has just worked very hard to offload more work to the GPU and also to optimize many other aspects of their systems for power usage. I get about an hour more battery life on windows vs linux.
  
  --
  Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
13. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · 2016-01-19 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Windows 10 is 10/10? Well, 10 divided by 10 equals one. But they did make the Xbox One. On the other hand, it means Xbox 1 is their third game console.
  I really can't wait to see what stupid name they'll be using for their fourth console:
  - Xbox
  - Xbox 360
  - Xbox One
  - Xbox Delta?
14. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Sable+Drakon · 2016-01-19 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  It was also the first decent general availability 3D Accelerated API. Sure, there was Glide, but that was pretty much VooDoo specific. So of course Microsoft didn't have anything to respond with initially.
  
  --
  The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
15. Re: My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  DirectX first came out in late 1995, so your understanding is wrong in that respect. Even Direct3D was included by version 2. And DirectX existed to give programmers a means to work with the Windows OS for their games.
  Sp why did OpenGL and D3d come about? What happened was that the silicon to handle the necessary functions was getting affordable, and Microsoft having its own interests, instead of sticking with OpenGL, picked something they could control.
16. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Tablizer · 2016-01-19 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, you have to pay for quality
  It's probably more about market-share than quality. Vendors of software and drivers target the biggest markets first because that's where the most revenue comes from, and Linux is not a big consumer market.
  Same with Mac. Mac's are not cheap, but not a good game platform due to the same market-share forces.
  If vendors want to go after smaller game markets such as Linux, Android, and Mac, then perhaps they should focus on strategy instead of flashy graphics. That way they don't have to optimize their software for a particular platform, and can live with the performance overhead of a platform translation layer when they write to a generic middle-ware graphics "standard".
  But strategy games don't seem to be big sellers. Human "apes" are drawn to the big shiny red ball, as usual. And fancy graphics are a status symbol: keeping up with the Jones'.
  Windows strategy for survival is the same as it's always been: you use Windows because everyone else is using and building for Windows, NOT because it's good.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
17. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by exomondo · 2016-01-19 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Linux has much less overhead and is often tailored to squeeze every ounce of power out of it's hardware.
  In what cases is it "tailored to squeeze every ounce of power out of it's hardware"? In its most common form (Android, Debian/Slackware/RedHat-based desktop and server distributions) it is about wide hardware compatibility. Even most embedded are just the stable kernel tree.
  
  Linux if built for specific hardware can achieve much better performance than Windows in it's current state.
  That's true of anything. If you make a special version of software that targets specific hardware it is most likely going to run better than software that targets a whole range of hardware.
18. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by angel'o'sphere · 2016-01-19 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  You can run linux on a 8MB RAM system with as much performance as he processor likes to give you.
  I bet you can scale it even down to 1MB ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
19. Re: My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-01-19 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  DirectX first came out in late 1995, so your understanding is wrong in that respect.
  I stand corrected. I didn't become serious about video games until I got a job as a video game tester in 1997. Direct3D at work didn't become a factor until the company decided to give up software rendering mode in 1998.
20. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  Xbox: look, we have a console too!
  Xbox 360: we've come full circle, maybe we did it better this time?
  Xbox 1: 1 more try, 3rd time's a charm right?
  ReduXbox: try, try again...
21. Re: My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Type44Q · 2016-01-19 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Windows 10 is 10/10
  Is it easier type that with a straight face when you post anonymously? :)
22. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by angel'o'sphere · 2016-01-19 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  The speed of MATLAB should be completely independent of the OS.
  The only things where the OS could be involved is swaping/paging. If a OS is slowing down an application from its max performance there is a serious problem in the OS.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
23. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by cayenne8 · 2016-01-19 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  That's true of anything. If you make a special version of software that targets specific hardware it is most likely going to run better than software that targets a whole range of hardware.
  But there are distros of Linux, like Gentoo...where you can install it and custom compile your kernel, etc...for the hardware it is running on.
  If for nothing else, this is nice for squeezing out the most of your older hardware you might be wanting to run things on rather than toss it in the trash.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
24. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 09:42 · Score: 0
  
  OpenGL is a lot like the wild west. You may have some documentation,
  
  OpenGL (and GL before it) was thoroughly documented a long time ago. I'm pretty sure that if you spent 3 seconds with Google you could even find all of it.
25. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 09:45 · Score: 0
  
  The worst part of OpenGL in general is the use of extensions. While you can get GLEW or other code generation solutions to create the functions looks up for you, there are the glFunc*ARB, glFunc*EXT, glFunc*, glFunc*NV, glFunc*ATI versions. It's always hit-and-miss as to whether a particular extension is supported on a particular GPU. That's all down to hardware, and that's why open-source support for old hardware is so tricky. There's 500+ extensions now, many of them are outdated/deprecated (register combiners) or only for SGI workstations. With OpenGL ES fortunately, that's all gone. Functions for a particular release are all there.
  But the extension specification for OpenGL only tell you what parameters the functions accept and what result codes will be returned. There's no real explanation on how to combine functions together to do something useful. you have to either buy the official programming guides or be a blog vampire, flying around looking for information to suck. If that wasn't tricky enough, several times now, they have shoehorned new functionality into existing functions. Traditionally, you set up a pointer to a list of vertices using glVertexAttribPointer, but now you can can jam in an integer offset into that void pointer parameter when using array buffers (it offsets from the start of the buffer). Traditionally you would also use a create function to generate some object like a texture or a buffer but now there are "binding points" which are a raw set of indices you link buffers to at one side and shader uniform buffer blocks at the other side.
  It's like OpenGL is trying to move to a dataflow model with vertex, geometry, fragment, compute and tesselation shaders and buffers that can all feed into each other but has to maintain backwards functionality. Fortunately, the successor is now Vulkan which just goes back to low-level programming involving allocating memory for generic buffers and textures and issuing draw commands. That's more or less where DirectX 12 and consoles are.
26. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 09:46 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, but you can't get much in the way of a GUI that way, and even your TUI is going to be somewhat limited. Something like Puppy Linux (100-200MB) would be a good comparison, or Lubuntu (500-600MB).
27. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  Troll grade: FAIL
  Doubtful, you certainly got sucked in to writing a lengthy rebuttal. That's exactly the point of trolling, it isn't about trying to make a valid point you don't like, it is about deliberately making an invalid point to provoke a response. You lose.
28. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by angel'o'sphere · 2016-01-19 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Programming wise the royal pain in the ass is quite the opposite around, and it is not over. I pity those who use DirectX instead of OpenGL.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
29. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  The only thing that gets people to buy new computers these days is the fact that Windows can't be
  upgraded in any reasonable amount of time. Seems to me it gets more bloated all the time.
30. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by exomondo · 2016-01-19 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  But there are distros of Linux, like Gentoo...where you can install it and custom compile your kernel, etc...for the hardware it is running on.
  Yes that is what I said, if you make a custom version of software to target specific hardware you're more than likely to get better performance than software that targets a range of hardware. But in reality the investment in the hardware driver is going to provide far more value than modifying the kernel.
  
  If for nothing else, this is nice for squeezing out the most of your older hardware you might be wanting to run things on rather than toss it in the trash.
  Yet as this article demonstrates, the open source drivers for older hardware often regress into an unworkable state, obviously the time spent on making this older hardware work is not worth the effort.
31. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by torqer · 2016-01-19 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for the memories of upgrading my Pentium 200 with a 3DFX Voodoo card. At the time, a mind boggling feat to have a whopping 4 megs of ram just for 3D.
  GLQuake.exe here we come!
32. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by mikael · 2016-01-19 09:55 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  In 1995. when Quake made use of the floating-point and integer units of the Pentium CPU to do software texture-mapping in a custom engine, SGI realized that they had to bring out a software version of OpenGL that would run on desktop PC's. Back then some bits of OpenGL would be implemented in hardware (the "fast path"), and other bits in software (the "slow path"). It was a pain-in-the-ass for developers to try and divine which were slow and which were fast. Some combinations of vertex/color/normal attributes were fast and others were slow. Microsoft bought out a 3D game engine developer, pulled out the lower layers and created DirectX.
  The 3Dfx brought out a piggy-back board, that worked with desktop PC's. Then SGI engineers left to form Nvidia, and a great race began. First texture-mapping was hardware accelerated, then both companies try to outdo each other every quarter with new extensions. That led to a legal battle, with Nvidia winning.
  Eventually by 2001, they reached having the first true full hardware accelerated consumer 3D graphics acceleration for a PC. That's continued.
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
33. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  I'm a FreeBSD lover myself, but I'm sure they chose it just for the license. FreeBSD is awesome, but
  Corporate America wouldn't know something awesome if it walked up to them in a big red suit. You
  sound just as bad as the Loonix fanboys.
34. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by exomondo · 2016-01-19 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  But the tablet version of Windows 10 is probably not the best example since it's been optimized for the hardware (drivers).
  The version running on those tablets is the same Windows 10 you run on desktops.
  
  It still doesn't put Linux behind Windows performance wise.
  Like anything you need to look at the specific use-case and hardware involved, there is no one answer that applies to all.
35. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-01-19 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  My favorite rig from that era was an AMD K6-2 500MHz with a Nvidia TNT video card and a pair of 3Dfx Voodoo 2 boards in SLI mode. I could play any game in any video mode with that configuration.
36. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Penguinisto · 2016-01-19 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  In what cases is it "tailored to squeeze every ounce of power out of it's hardware"?
  ...an any case where the admin/owner decides to take a trip through make config , in extreme cases literally tear out unused bits of kernel from source (then recompile), or on a lesser scale, tweak up /etc/sysctl.
  Now, if you mean tailoring from the OEM? That's most often found in Linux-based appliances, where the source itself is often hacked on to remove stuff the appliance would never use.
  To be fair? Yeah you can twiddle with Windows Registry settings and turn off/disable excess services (I'd done both back in the day to wring out every last fps in Unreal Tournament), but you cannot literally pare out excess/unused crap in any part of the Windows microkernel itself. (I remember WinCE having something similar to that ability back in the day, but I doubt it's still there, especially for, say, Windows 10).
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
37. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by unixisc · 2016-01-19 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  I wish Valve had picked PC-BSD as their platform, instead of Ubuntu. I'd have loved to be able to play Civilization V on this PC-BSD laptop. Guess I'll have to wait until PC-BSD 11, when SteamOS jails will be included.
38. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  The difference between "should be" and "is" has some importance here. Perhaps there are some factors at work you are not aware of? Or have gotten the relative importance factors wrong?
39. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anne+Thwacks · 2016-01-19 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Xbox 640k?
  Should be enough for anyone!
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
40. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by exomondo · 2016-01-19 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  In what cases is it "tailored to squeeze every ounce of power out of it's hardware"?
  ...an any case where the admin/owner decides to take a trip through make config , in extreme cases literally tear out unused bits of kernel from source (then recompile), or on a lesser scale, tweak up /etc/sysctl.
  Not really, that might reduce the footprint a bit but it's a far cry from tailoring it to "squeeze every ounce of power out of it's hardware". I doubt many - if any - people actually do much outside of what you specified. The real hardware-specific performance gains are going to be achieved with good hardware drivers, not just omitting things from the kernel.
41. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Ambassador+Kosh · 2016-01-19 10:59 · Score: 2
  
  How fast MATLAB runs will vary based on how much CPU time it can get. If Xorg+WM takes more CPU time than Windows does then MATLAB won't have as much CPU time to run with.
  Anything that makes the OS offload more work or do work more intelligently will increase the speed of any cpu bound operation. Just like you do the same total number of operations if you use a triple nested loop to multiply two matrixes or you use xGEMM. However the xGEMM version will run almost 100x faster since it uses the CPU FAR more efficiently. If Microsoft has made their system more highly optimized and better at offloading that would make MATLAB faster.
  
  --
  Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
42. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by UnknownSoldier · 2016-01-19 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  > Microsoft bought out a 3D game engine developer, pulled out the lower layers and created DirectX.
  That was due to Microsoft's NIH syndrome; they bought RenderMorphics in February 1995 and transformed their shitty Reality Lab API into DirectX.
  * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
43. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by exomondo · 2016-01-19 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  Human "apes" are drawn to the big shiny red ball, as usual. And fancy graphics are a status symbol: keeping up with the Jones'.
  I think your problem is your inability to see anything beyond the "big shiny red ball". Go play tuxracer if you want but the latest Forza, for example, offers a *lot* more than just realistic graphics, now of course as an "ape" you can't see that can you? You're too distracted by the "shiny" to notice everything else. If you're going to try to create a realistic experience with physics, sound and AI then why would you not do the same with graphics?
44. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by dbIII · 2016-01-19 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  What do you base that on considering such things as the NVIDIA drivers for both being worked on by the same team and updated at the same time.
  Is it a guess? Or just cheering for your special toy?
  
  not for performance reasons
  Meanwhile back in reality if the CPU has less to do it performs better at the things it is doing. A stripped down MS system would also perform well for exactly the same reason.
45. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 13:54 · Score: 0
  
  This is truth. Anyone who has ever looked at DirectX v3 code knows real horror. It took several years for this situation to change.
46. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 15:00 · Score: 0
  
  The irony was that AMD hardware was even worse then than it is now. The K6 line was terrible beyond reason.
47. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 15:01 · Score: 0
  
  No you cant. 4M is pretty much the absolute minimum. Even using minimal busybox on linux build from scatch.
  Also pretty useless at 4M.
48. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Tablizer · 2016-01-19 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not quite following your criticism. There seems to be an unstated assumption. They could target Forza at other or multiple platforms and still have "full" physics. The physics calculations shouldn't be "lost" on other platforms, even if some graphics are, unless perhaps they are using the GPU for physics also?
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
49. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  Trimming off services you don't need running in Windows will give you another 10-15% performance boost easily and no you don't need to run all of the services windows has on all the time by default. I suspect they set it up that way so 'everything just works' out of the box if a user requires some of those services. Yes, this can be done in *NIX of all kinds as well in their daemon processes too, but I just thought I'd put that point across too. I've been doing it for decades since the original Windows NT 3.5 model (and on Win9x, and Win3.x/DOS before it on PC's and it really works for performance boosts on the cheap as well as a more efficient system overall too).
50. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by exomondo · 2016-01-19 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  They could target Forza at other or multiple platforms and still have "full" physics.
  Why make a half-assed version for a niche platform that can't support proper graphics? Having a high resolution visual experience isn't some "status symbol" it is being able to express the vision of the art designer and to create an immersive experience for the gamer. Previously we had to expend considerable effort to scale down assets and remove detail because of hardware constraints, now the hardware is powerful enough that we waste much less time compromising the art design.
  
  The physics calculations shouldn't be "lost" on other platforms, even if some graphics are, unless perhaps they are using the GPU for physics also?
  Very often the GPU is used for physics calculations.
51. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 15:58 · Score: 0
  
  As a professional programmer (and hobbyist shareware/freeware dev too on the side) I always found working with OpenGL easier than doing DirectX work while doing screensavers which was my first exposure to both for animation in 3d. The api call interface was simpler in OpenGL which at the time was purely only graphics whereas DirectX had control of far more at the time than just graphics alone which might explain part of what I saw/felt on both in terms of difficulty of use in code.
52. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 17:18 · Score: 0
  
  That was due to Microsoft's NIH syndrome; they bought RenderMorphics in February 1995 and transformed their shitty Reality Lab API into DirectX.
  That is the exact *opposite* of NIH syndrome. Instead of building something themselves they decided buy and use something that was Not Invented Here.
53. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by UnknownSoldier · 2016-01-19 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  Do you even understand the phrase NIH at all ??
  > Not Invented Here (NIH) is the philosophical principle of not using third party solutions to a problem because of their external origins.
  The third-party OpenGL *already* existed and they refused to use *that*.
  They *invented* DirectX by buying a company and bringing it in house.
54. Re: My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 18:07 · Score: 0
  
  Not anymore. Thanks to modern CPU gains in technology, turning off services will hardly make an impact on CPU usage. It will help reduce memory footprint though at best.
55. Re: My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by dunkelfalke · 2016-01-19 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  You must confuse it with Cyrix. Their CPUs were utter crap, but K6-2 and expecially K6-3 were quite decent when it came to ingeger performance and bearable at the FPU side.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
56. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 19:46 · Score: 0
  
  At the time OpenGL completely sucked and did for a long long time, DirectX wasn't just to compete with OpenGL, it was to allow them to do everything OPenGL did and a whole heap of stuff OpenGL didn't do.
57. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 19:51 · Score: 0
  
  That hasn't been true for a long time, many of the taxing windows services are start on demand or only operate when there is spare CPU cycles.
58. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 21:52 · Score: 0
  
  The original DirectX had a very different goal, but got pushed into being an OpenGL competitor.
  See: http://www.alexstjohn.com/WP/2014/07/18/early-direct3d-com-opengl/
  "Early arguments over Direct3D vs OpenGL were baffling because OpenGL IS NOT a driver model for Windows, it’s a high level 3D API."
59. Re: My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 22:10 · Score: 0
  
  FPU performance sucked. That was the problem. Back when I built my first PC I swapped a K6 233 for a Pentium 200 and saw a 25+ FPS increase in Quake 2 alone.
60. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 23:10 · Score: 0
  
  How do you know? "The version running on those tablets is the same Windows 10 you run on desktops." Really? You have compiled them and/or have the buildchain to verify that the source code for both is the same?
  Sweet.
  Got links?
61. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 23:42 · Score: 0
  
  Are you talking about the XBox when you claim: "Why make a half-assed version for a niche platform that can't support proper graphics?"?
  Here's the reason why: there's money on the table. And in a market where you're the only racing carsim with realistic graphics and physics, you win all the money for that on that table, even if it IS small.
  There's an advantage too to writing multiplatform, as any programmer knows: if it works on several systems, its less likely to have crashing bugs and to work better. It even makes QC easier, since you don't necessarily have to test every permutation of game progress, since the differences in game play on different OSes can exercise different path orders, especially useful in a multithreaded program, where nondeterministic code paths is a serious cause for bad bugs in software.
62. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by AmiMoJo · 2016-01-20 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  Windows performance, especially for games, is extremely good. Microsoft has now produced three games consoles and learned a lot about gaming performance from them. That's one of the reasons why the performance boost from Vista to Windows 7 was so big - they used the tools they developed for games to profile Windows code and fix the bottlenecks.
  DirectX is also pretty damn good for games. OpenGL is lagging a bit, especially in terms of bringing together more traditional rendering and compute. Non-Microsoft consoles favour it but provide many custom extensions to boost performance. On PCs and on Linux it is unlikely to perform as well as DirectX in modern games.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
63. Re: My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-01-20 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  If you wanted increase performance from the K6 233 processor, you needed to overclock to 266. However, the K6-2 500 was faster than anything that Intel had at that time. I think the Pentium topped out at 266. Intel introduced the Pentium 2 and a different socket design to compete with the K6-2 at the faster clock rates.
64. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by UnknownSoldier · 2016-01-20 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Have you even *played* glQuake ?? Because you keep using this word "sucked" -- it doesn't mean what you think it means.
  *At the time*, OpenGL was WAY easier to **developers** as Carmack pointed out in his plan how much *Direct3D sucked*. Why do you think Windows NT _supported_ OpenGL in the _first_ place??
  I know because I was one of the many game developers who signed the original petition to Microsoft to support OpenGL *at the time* instead of that shit-fest Direct3D. The fact that Microsoft's politics over internal conflicting goals, crappy driver/kernel support such as the ICD (installable client driver), Microsoft being two-faced and hypocritical with the Fahrenheit (API) didn't exactly help.
  Was OpenGL perfect? Of course not. But Direct3D with its cap bits, and other stupidity, made OpenGL pure joy to code for.
  The rest of DirectX solved a real problem. Direct3D just re-invented, poorly, an existing wheel.
  And in typical fashion, MS never gets anything right until the 3rd version.
65. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-01-20 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you think Windows NT _supported_ OpenGL in the _first_ place??
  Not for games. Windows NT was the business operating system. OpenGL was there to support CAD and graphic users with high-end OpenGL cards as an alternative platform to Silicon Graphics.
66. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Ravaldy · 2016-01-20 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  The version running on those tablets is the same Windows 10 you run on desktops.
  If your desktop runs ARM then maybe, but I doubt it. The other big difference is that the tablet manufacturer will tune the OS to minimize potential failure points (by removing features) and will maximize performance in the process.
  
  Like anything you need to look at the specific use-case and hardware involved, there is no one answer that applies to all.
  Absolutely. Something many /. users oversee. Hardcore gamers will invest time in "tuning" their hardware and software. Although Windows partially caters to this, Linux caters more. It that a valid argument for suggesting one if better than the other? I'd suggest the answer is no.
67. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by Ravaldy · 2016-01-20 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  In what cases is it "tailored to squeeze every ounce of power out of it's hardware"?
  Because of the community you get specialized version of drivers that remove unneeded checks for specific applications. This isn't possible with Windows drivers as they are usually not open source. It all comes down to the open source nature of Linux and it's distributions.
  
  That's true of anything. If you make a special version of software that targets specific hardware it is most likely going to run better than software that targets a whole range of hardware.
  Linux in it's base form is an empty shell you can fill. Windows more or less has an equivalent of this. Windows 10 IoT is probably the closest thing to it and I'm not sure how feature rich it really is compared to the Linux Kernel.
68. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by exomondo · 2016-01-20 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Because of the community you get specialized version of drivers that remove unneeded checks for specific applications. This isn't possible with Windows drivers as they are usually not open source. It all comes down to the open source nature of Linux and it's distributions.
  You're talking about open source rather than Linux. A great deal - the majority actually - of the hardware drivers for Linux are in fact closed source.
69. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by exomondo · 2016-01-20 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  If your desktop runs ARM then maybe, but I doubt it.
  Most Windows-based tablets are x86, not ARM.
70. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by exomondo · 2016-01-20 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Are you talking about the XBox when you claim: "Why make a half-assed version for a niche platform that can't support proper graphics?"?
  No, this article is about Linux graphics drivers and that while they have gotten better for brand new hardware they have gotten a lot worse for older hardware.
  
  Here's the reason why: there's money on the table.
  But there isn't, because the target is a niche.
  
  There's an advantage too to writing multiplatform, as any programmer knows: if it works on several systems, its less likely to have crashing bugs and to work better.
  Umm...no, there's no factual basis to support such a thing.
  
  It even makes QC easier, since you don't necessarily have to test every permutation of game progress, since the differences in game play on different OSes can exercise different path orders
  How does that result in less burden on QC? You still have to test everything and you have to test it on every target platform.
  
  especially useful in a multithreaded program, where nondeterministic code paths is a serious cause for bad bugs in software.
  And since every platform has different methods for handling multiple threads that increases the burden on QC. Just because it works on one platform doesn't mean it will work on every platform.
71. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by exomondo · 2016-01-20 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  How do you know?
  Because they're both x86, so I just installed the same OS on both.
  
  You have compiled them and/or have the buildchain to verify that the source code for both is the same?
  That seems pretty moronic, I just used the same install media on both.
72. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by mikael · 2016-01-20 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  The OpenGL bits that "sucked" at the time were lighting (8 or 16 light sources max, built in to the pipeline). This was great for CAD companies who just needed stuff to look like plastic, but it was awful for game developers. Also, OpenGL back then only used the begin/end model with display lists. The main vendors only optimized the paths that ID software used (various combinations of vertex, normal color and texcoords). Programmers had to speed test all the different paths to find out why there were speed differences. Some hardware vendors optimized their drivers for the application being run.
  It has taken a lot of extensions to add vertex array/buffer objects, high level shaders, off-screen framebuffers, transform feedback and compute shaders. Even then the ARB commitee couldn't really agree on what features should be provided. If you look at the extension specifications from back then, hardware vendors couldn't even agree on what instructions should be provided for shaders.
  From a Microsoft perspective, they are always the middle-man between hardware and applications (like shopping malls and actual plots of land). Thus they needed a device driver which they could modify and update in real-time according to the demands of the 3D industry, rather than at the speed of a committee.
  If anyone remembers the first attempts at building a standard for gaming (MSX consoles), each hardware vendor would provide a system that conformed to the base standard, and then add their own "special sauce" that tied players into their platform. This fell apart when games for one system wouldn't run on another. Microsoft wanted to avoid this and just be able to state what the minimum standard was (even this wasn't enough, so they moved into consoles with the XBox).
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
73. Re:My conclusion is that linux sucks for games by angel'o'sphere · 2016-01-22 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  On the moment an application like MATLAB is in the foreground, the OS should basically do nothing.
  In other words only competing applications and the scheduling overhead of the OS should slow down any given application.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Horrible confusion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 08:24 · Score: 0

Driver support is among the worst of all hardware in all of Lignux. Always has been. OpenGL is still a hack bolt on to many GUI toolkits. Horrible confusion reigns with Wayland and X. OpenGL should be the foundation of screen rendering, period.
Moore's law by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 08:27 · Score: 0

Note that is nearly perfect 2x performance increase in 18 months
Sounds like they were studying the wrong thing by DrXym · 2016-01-19 08:29 · Score: 0

The study should have been called "measuring bit rot in open source drivers".
1. Re:Sounds like they were studying the wrong thing by bridgmanAMD · 2016-01-22 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty much... specifically open source drivers running on cards that happened to have very few active users and so essentially no real world test coverage. If the tests had covered even older cards that still had some active users (eg X1950) I suspect the results would have been different.
So we're using nearly 40% more power? by mark-t · 2016-01-19 09:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

While it's nice and all that we're getting 72x more performance per watt, since we are at 100x times the performance, that means that we are using 100/72=1.39 times the power that we used to.
I could start into a tirade about how this is contributing to global warming, but I'll leave that somewhat political stance for another time.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
1. Re:So we're using nearly 40% more power? by JackieBrown · 2016-01-19 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  While it's nice and all that we're getting 72x more performance per watt, since we are at 100x times the performance, that means that we are using 100/72=1.39 times the power that we used to.
  If we are getting that much of a performance boost, we are most likely not spending as much time maxing out the card's performance (and using that extra energy) as we were before.
2. Re:So we're using nearly 40% more power? by jandrese · 2016-01-19 09:34 · Score: 3
  
  It may be better than you think. Idle power draws are way down on most cards and they were not measured here. If it draws more power for the 8 hours a week you actually use it for gaming, but less power for the other 160 hours then you are probably going to come out ahead.
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
3. Re:So we're using nearly 40% more power? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  The old cards are completely choking for vram, so they are realistically idled waiting for texture data to swap in from system ram. Unfortunately the data just isn't that interesting, the way it was done.
4. Re:So we're using nearly 40% more power? by tlhIngan · 2016-01-19 10:42 · Score: 2
  
  If we are getting that much of a performance boost, we are most likely not spending as much time maxing out the card's performance (and using that extra energy) as we were before.
  Ah, but 10 years ago or so, we were really happy to get 1080p resolution working. Then we added to it - quad HD (2560x1440 - 4x 720p), and now ultra-HD/4K (3840x2160).
  So a lot of performance improvements have gone to quadrupling the number of pixels we render out, including the increase in texture resolution and details.
  So we're likely back to where we started.
5. Re:So we're using nearly 40% more power? by aliquis · 2016-01-19 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  So we're likely back to where we started.
  Yeah, because rendering the first Tomb rider in 4K would had been so hard ..
  Also most people use 1080p _NOW_, ten years ago maybe they used 1280x1024 or something.
  To work/complexity has increased a lot of course and will continue to do so with increasing capability for games.
  For desktop & even video work it likely haven't increased as fast as the capabilities of the cards.
6. Re:So we're using nearly 40% more power? by antdude · 2016-01-19 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they still need to lower the power when using them too!
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
7. Re:So we're using nearly 40% more power? by SuiteSisterMary · 2016-01-21 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  Heh, I remember using 1280x1024 on my Ati Mach64 with a whopping 2mb of VRAM, back in 1995ish.
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
8. Re:So we're using nearly 40% more power? by aliquis · 2016-01-22 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  800x600 / 1024x768 / 1280x1024 and so on was the standards of the CRT era but the first LCD/TFT monitors ...
  Here's a TomÂs hardware article from 2004:
  http://www.tomshardware.com/re...
  "Getting hold of a suitable TFT panel presents no difficulties, as we said before: an old 15.1" flatscreen monitor makes the ideal basis for building a powerful projector. Most displays offer a physical resolution of 1024x768 (i.e. 786,432) pixels, for playing back high-quality DVD videos or displaying the Windows screen. Some models even offer resolution of 1280x1024 pixels, making them suitable for 3D games, too."
  "The table above lists the principal resolutions; note that resolutions higher than SXGA are seldom available in 15" format."
  That was using older monitors though.. But still, I don't really think the majority used 1080p 10 years ago, even less played games in it.
Windows isn't as bloated as it used to be. by whathappenedtomonday · 2016-01-19 09:22 · Score: 4, Informative

You almost got me up to that statement. I did a VM install of Win10 over the weekend; it failed the first time, because I thought that a fixed 16GB for the test partition would do. The dynamic container is at 24.738.004.992 bytes now after the Threshold 2 update. Nothing else was installed - just Win10 + updates.
Give it a try, grab the iso and fire up a VM. No need for a Windows key, you can skip entering it just like the activation.
Threshold 2, which like all updates is not optional, as we all know, took >1 hour on a 4 core system with a decent SSD and ~2,5GB RAM for the VM. I wonder what you'd call a "bloated" OS.

--
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
1. Re:Windows isn't as bloated as it used to be. by Blaskowicz · 2016-01-19 12:37 · Score: 2
  
  Windows itself is fairly decent, I've even seen Windows 7 run on an Athlon XP with 768MB RAM just fine for offline duties.
  Windows Update is a nightmare, easily the most demanding application on a Windows PC and seemingly non-deterministic. You can leave it for an hour, with the fake progress bar treading water and the CPU somewhat hammered and it fails to find updates forever. There was that WUReset script that helped, and now my VM fails to update. Also I have a physical installation with Windows 7 SP0 and that bug that SP1 fails to install.
  I've got to wonder how many millions PC are at risk of bad malware infestation because the updater just doesn't work.
2. Re:Windows isn't as bloated as it used to be. by JoeMerchant · 2016-01-19 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  Ya, define "bloat." I have installed Ubuntu Desktop (14.04 and 15.10) about 300 times in the last 6 months (seems like, anyway), and Windows 10 Enterprise about 20 times. It also seems like I've spent about an equal amount of time on both tasks. Installing Windows 10 is definitely slower, more interactive (I call it "painful"), and requiring more system resources.
3. Re:Windows isn't as bloated as it used to be. by thegarbz · 2016-01-19 21:38 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder what you'd call a "bloated" OS.
  An OS that runs slowly and poorly because of extra cruft that is loaded and doing something that is of no benefit to the user.
  Using up diskspace is not bloat.
  Using up diskspace for uninstall information of a major update and a system restore point is definitely not bloat.
  And while each successive version of windows has gotten larger on the drive, they have also gotten progressively faster, more responsive, and better at managing memory, the opposite of bloat in my books.
4. Re:Windows isn't as bloated as it used to be. by whathappenedtomonday · 2016-01-20 09:00 · Score: 1
  I haven't used the Win10 install much, but just to nitpick:
  bloated
  ...
  
  2. Excessively or extremely large (...)
  3. (computing, of software) Excessively overloaded with features (...)
  ...
  In my book, both apply :-P
  Without the rollback and backup stuff you mention, the frickin thing is still huge.
  Don't get me wrong, but just the other day I was reminiscing with a friend about the times when our PCs ran at 4,77 MHz and how we dreamt of what those machines could do if they ran at 40 or even 400 MHz. Today, those things run at >2 GHz speeds on several cores (!), and most of the times we still wait and wait and wait ... which is the "bloat" I'm talking about. The waiting is in large parts due to -- but not exclusively and not only on Win machines -- modern OS architecture and feature bloat. Why MS is still pushing every last feature to every last machine instead of giving users a way of opting in and out of certain aspects of the OS only a small part of the user base will ever use is beyond me (as are most of their decisions lately). Yet, you have to click through several pages of privacy settings when installing Win10, unless you click "MS knows best, don't bother me with what it collects and phones home". What's wrong with a "Chose the components you wish to install now and add others later" option, so that for example desktop users can skip all the shiny new touch and tablet kinda stuff?!
  End rant.
  --
  I hope I didn't brain my damage.
5. Re:Windows isn't as bloated as it used to be. by thegarbz · 2016-01-20 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah I understand the sentiment but the problem with Windows (if you call it a problem) is integration. Cortana search, speech recognition, handwriting recognition, they all seem like standalone systems but they are heavily ingrained and used in multiple places throughout the OS each interdependent on another. Excessive feature overload depends entirely on if you use all those features and most people would, mind you I also don't consider a 11GB OS (Windows is only massive if you keep uninstall information for every update, the default action is for the OS to remove these after 30 days) massive, not when the office apps for it are more than half that size, a typical CAD program is larger than that, and pretty much no game is smaller than that anymore. "excessive" is dependent on situation.
  But then Windows 10 does have a 3D printing program in it. So I do kinda agree there's some bloat to be cut, and I do wish I could uninstall the Xbox live shit.
Same here by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 09:24 · Score: 0

I preferred penisbird ascii
Stop saying "performant" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 09:56 · Score: 0

fuckssakes, stop it.
unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 10:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

This article is not that interesting, primarily because they used high settings + 2560x1440 on old 256MB (!) cards, so most likely those cars are bottlenecked by gpu system ram texture swapping, showing lower performance and lower power reading than if more reasonable settings had been used. We're not seeing GPU power compared, but vram bottlenecks instead.
1. Re:unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-19 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  What, you actually expected something out of a Phoronix article?
  Hold my beer while I guffaw.
Is this of interest to anyone besides gamers? by shoor · 2016-01-19 10:52 · Score: 2

The main reason I've favored intel MBs recently is that they've opened sourced their graphics, which are good enough for me, so I don't have to worry about them. But then, I'm not a gamer. Are there folks out there who need the high end graphics stuff for something besides games?
PS
Just for the record, I have ways of wasting my time that may not be any better than playing games so I'm not going to adopt a 'holier than thou' attitude towards gamers. And even I may benefit from the gamer world because gaming does push technology.

--
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
1. Re:Is this of interest to anyone besides gamers? by Osgeld · 2016-01-19 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  modern cad work
  video editing
  multihead displays
  simulators (and I dont mean flight sim)
  physics calculations
  3d rendering for art / film /tv etc
2. Re:Is this of interest to anyone besides gamers? by Neo-Rio-101 · 2016-01-19 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  CAD, graphics rendering, super computer research applications
  
  --
  READY.
  PRINT ""+-0
3. Re:Is this of interest to anyone besides gamers? by JohnStock · 2016-01-29 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  The video game industry is several times the size of the movie industry. You mention it as if its'a niche thing instead of being the ubiquitous activity it is in reality.
that's about a 1.6x improvement year over year by PJ6 · 2016-01-19 11:49 · Score: 1

I could see that it was less than 2, but doing arbitrary roots in your head can be tricky.

Wolfram Alpha is great when you're out and all's you got is your phone.
FOSS drivers by xororand · 2016-01-19 14:49 · Score: 1

The FOSS drivers for Nvidia ("nouveau") and AMD ("amdgpu") have come a long way.
They are outperforming the proprietary drivers in some games already.
That is, at least with the latest pre-release kernel, for amdgpu, and Mesa 11.
Quirks are getting fewer and fewer. OpenCL support is progressing.
However the most important advantage is that the open drivers can support old hardware forever.
1. Re:FOSS drivers by hairyfeet · 2016-01-19 15:41 · Score: 0
  
  Uhhhh...about that? Yeah you see that is how its SUPPOSED to work, in theory at least, but once you start actually digging out the really old hardware to try to test that theory? Yeah you end up like this guy right here.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.