Slashdot Mirror
'Linux vs Windows' Challenge: Phoronix Tests Popular Games (phoronix.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Michael Larabel at Phoronix has combined their new results from intensive Linux/Windows performance testing for popular games on Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA graphics cards, and at different resolutions. "This makes it easy to see the Linux vs. Windows performance overall or for games where the Linux ports are simply rubbish and performing like crap compared to the native Windows game." The games tested included Xonotic, Tomb Raider, Grid Autosport, Dota 2, Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor, F1 2015, and Company of Heroes 2 -- and the results were surprising.
Xonotic v0.8 outperformed Windows with a NVIDIA card, but "The poor Xonotic performance on Linux with the Intel driver was one of the biggest surprises from yesterday's article. It's not anything we've seen with the other drivers." And while testing on the Source 2 engine revealed that Valve's Dota 2 "is a quality Linux port," most of the other results were disappointing -- regardless of the graphics card and driver. "Tomb Raider on Linux performs much worse than the Windows build regardless of your driver/graphics card... Shadow of Mordor's relative Linux performance is more decent than many other Linux games albeit still isn't running at the same speeds as the Windows games..."
The article concludes with a note of optimism. "Hopefully in due time with the next generation of games making use of Vulkan...we'll see better performance relative to Windows." Have Slashdot readers seen any performance issues while playing games on Linux?
Xonotic v0.8 outperformed Windows with a NVIDIA card, but "The poor Xonotic performance on Linux with the Intel driver was one of the biggest surprises from yesterday's article. It's not anything we've seen with the other drivers." And while testing on the Source 2 engine revealed that Valve's Dota 2 "is a quality Linux port," most of the other results were disappointing -- regardless of the graphics card and driver. "Tomb Raider on Linux performs much worse than the Windows build regardless of your driver/graphics card... Shadow of Mordor's relative Linux performance is more decent than many other Linux games albeit still isn't running at the same speeds as the Windows games..."
The article concludes with a note of optimism. "Hopefully in due time with the next generation of games making use of Vulkan...we'll see better performance relative to Windows." Have Slashdot readers seen any performance issues while playing games on Linux?
I have Gentoo on my desktop, Mint on my laptops. Both include proprietary codecs like x264. Both make it trivial to install proprietary nvidia drivers through the package manager, like any other package. Even distros like Debian that don't come with them out of the box still have repos and installation tools readily available.
Your experience does not represent all of Linux. But you seem to think it does. That's just ignorant.
I'm not worried about performance, so much as the games. I have Mint 17.3 on most of my PCs, and I can't play Fallout 4, Dark Souls 3, and GTAV. Bring the games, the performance will fallow.
Moral of the story: develop in linux and port to Windows, you could compete with native windows apps. Develop in windows and port to linux, you would be lucky if it just runs.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
As far as my limited understanding goes: OSX ports of games involve building against many of the (open source) components included in Linux distro's. So when doing an OSX port, a Linux port is 'low hanging fruit'. Some studios may take advantage of that to do a Linux port as well. Or not... depending on title, game engine, sales, in-house developer expertise, etc etc.
The market for OSX games is small compared to Windows games, but still significant and considerably bigger than Linux gaming. So in a way, you could say Linux gaming is freeriding on the OSX games market. And of course for games that are popular enough, even a 1~2% market is enough to warrant the effort for a port.
According to the Linux evangelists here, Linux is better at everything and can do no wrong. Therefore the data must be wrong or there must have been a flaw in the tests. It cannot possibly be true that Linux is inferior at anything.
I'm a long-time Linux user and it seems like a fair test to me. Gaming has long been one of the weakest parts of having Linux on the desktop. Data like this is how that can change. Only a few years ago, no one would have thought to publish an article like this, so in my mind, lots of progress has already been made. That will take time. Meanwhile it's always been the case, that if gaming is a killer feature for you, then you go with the platform that all the major games are targeting, which is Windows.
For me, gaming is nice but it's not crucial. I'm satisfied running older games via Wine and I'm satisfied with native Linux games that are already out there. I like the way that number keeps increasing. But I have no illusions: a hardcore gamer would be better off with Windows, at least on his/her main gaming rig. Of course, that person would also have to put up with the constant malware threats, the nuisance of Windows Update, the lack of a central package manager, and the general asshattery of Microsoft including its desire to spy on its paying customers. Decisions like these are trade-offs.
Not everyone is an unreasonable fanboy. I use Linux because I like it and it meets my needs. Full stop. I'm not part of "Tribe A" and we don't have to hate some perceived "Tribe B". It's really that simple.
I can't speak for the Tomb Raider devs, but I can at least give you my general impressions from the industry.
It's a small market, certainly, and inroads remain slow. Most high profile game developers, or at least the ones I've previously worked for, never even gave it a second thought. I think that's slowing changing, although certainly not as fast as in the indie scene. My impression is that a lot of indie game devs (my own included) focus on Linux precisely because the AAA studios don't seem to care about it, so it's a more untapped market. It takes fewer sales to make an indie game profitable, so we can afford to take the time to support that platform. When your budget is tens of millions (or hundreds in the largest case these days), you have to focus on the largest market for the biggest return.
Another factor is that many large studios have in-house engines or heavily modified commercial engines, or else rely on a large number of 3rd party technologies. Developing your own Linux port is expensive, and if you're using 3rd party software, unless Linux is fully supported, a port is much less likely. Indie devs, on the other hand, are very likely to be using vanilla Unity or Unreal, which have native Linux support.
I'm probably a bit unique for indies in that I'm using a custom engine, but am still planning complete Win/UWP/Mac/Linux support, doing all the ports the hard way (only Linux remaining now). Once your engine is done, though, it's just a matter of QA and update costs, so I'm counting on that long tail to make the initial investment worthwhile.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
I've got Win 8.1 and Linux in a dualboot setup on my computer and have been playing Dota 2 on both OSes. Performance on Linux has been on par with Windows and since the latest couple of patches I've seen the Linux client run even a few frames faster on average than the Windows one. On most other games the performance on Linux has been really problematic, though. The only other game I've seen run on my Linux perfectly is Natural Selection 2. The devs of NS2 have really put a lot of effort in developing the game further even though it's been over four years since its release.
-SR
Thank you for a reasoned post which tells things as they are. I also use Linux because it meets my needs. I don't pretend that it's for people who want the highest performance from the latest games or anything approaching that. There are games for Linux (and more all the time) but I would hardly call it a gamer's platform.
And Linux not being a gamer's platform is not a problem. Gamers should use platforms suited to their purposes. I don't tout Linux as the One Solution That Fits All.
Linux is useful to me for getting things done. That's all I need.
Dude, look at our cellphone plans, our cellular and wired Internet speeds, our monthly quotas and how much we pay for it. As far as telecommunications are concerned, we already are a 3rd world country.
The problem is support for gaming hardware.
There is no gaming culture on Linux. At least not yet. And this is why few makers of gaming hardware bother to produce drivers for their devices. And those where such drivers exist, they're usually not on par with the drivers for Windows. From input devices like flight sticks, steering wheels and high resolution mice to output devices like 7.1 audio cards and headphones. Either they don't work at all or you can at best get a token support out of it.
Would you like playing F1 2005 if the force feedback on your wheel doesn't work? How much fun is playing a FPS game when the audio is reduced to a half baked stereo output that doesn't give you any information about the attacker's location?
Performance only starts becoming an issue once you actually want to play the game on that system.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"It makes zero sense for a game studio to waste effort bringing the game to Linux."
It's not the game studios themselves that are doing the porting.
Specialized companies like Feral Interactive (native), Aspyr (native) and Virtual Programming (wrapper) do that work.
In many of these cases they already make ports for OS X, so they are familiar with the code.
(If you are really interested - I doubt you are - you could listen to this interview with Edwin of Feral Interactive.)
Steam has over 125 million registered accounts, so while 0.84% Linux isn't much, that's still more than 1 million potential Linux customers on Steam alone.
Also, there are more reasons to port than immediate money.
Creating goodwill, for instance. Or maybe a game's developer is a Linux fan.
Something like Tomb Raider doesn't run well on Windows Phones.
This is the games currently played on steam:
Current Max today
646,219 1,099,697 Dota 2
525,059 535,298 Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
71,194 71,655 ARK: Survival Evolved
70,252 70,252 Sid Meier's Civilization V
65,985 66,079 Football Manager 2016
62,039 64,762 Team Fortress 2
57,520 57,795 Garry's Mod
54,727 55,830 Rocket League
54,280 60,794 Grand Theft Auto V
45,628 45,628 Arma 3
Only the last 3 games is not availble for Linux. Top-7 of those games are available for Linux gamers.
So most of the game you call top-tiered are not among the most played games.
And the gamers today play alot of a bit older and more popular games.
Just saying it like it are.
It's a small market, certainly, and inroads remain slow. Most high profile game developers, or at least the ones I've previously worked for, never even gave it a second thought. I think that's slowing changing, although certainly not as fast as in the indie scene.
A good question is still: Why? According to Steam's survey 95.42% run Windows, 3.60% Mac and 0.84% Linux - not sure where the last 0.14% went. The number of Linux gamers is not budging, it's the same hardcore 1% that's used it on the desktop for the last decade. Unless Valve starts to get serious about Steam Machines and Linux I really don't see much of a business case...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Your #4 and #1 are mutually exclusive. And are related to #3.
If there is no central package manager, you can't trust somebody else to care about minimum security for you.
So in windows, if I need to batch re-size images, if I google "linux image resize", image-magick is in the first page.
"windows image resize" has a lot more of noise, so a user will probably download a demo with water marks, need to pay for a well known program or download a program from a non legit sources.
It's clear that the average linux user is more skilled that the average windows user, and that the most important linux tools are open source and available for windows.
The desire to release a game on both Windows and various consoles
A developer that has been approved by ID@Xbox but told "not yet" by SCE and Nintendo is likely to target Windows and Xbox One. Or in other words, Windows and Windows.
we already want to make the game as reasonably portable as possible so we can put in on PC, consoles, and possibly mobile--ie, often Android.
I don't see how one game can work well on both consoles and mobile, especially if isn't inherently a point-and-click game. Consoles have a thumbstick and buttons as their primary input device. The vast majority of Android devices* have a touch screen. If you try to adapt a game designed for a thumbstick and buttons to a touch screen the trivial way, by putting a D-pad and buttons on a flat sheet of glass the way emulators do, you get something like Pixeline and the Jungle Treasure . It's a platformer in the vein of Super Mario Bros. or Giana Sisters. When I tried it on my Nexus 7 (2012) tablet, it was a pain in the ass to play because I kept accidentally pressing outside the active area of the on-screen controls due to lack of any sort of tactile feedback as to where my thumbs were. (Pairing a Bluetooth keyboard solves it but also somewhat defeats the point of mobile.) The workaround to make a platformer work with a touch screen often involves simplifying it to an endless runner.
* Most Android devices are not OUYA, SHIELD, JXD, or GameStick.
If you haven't played it you're missing out. Although Minsta-Hook is not my cup of tea, if you love flying around like Spiderman with a insta kill laser in your hand this is for you. Xon has Vehicles, Jet Packs and Overkill Mod too. My fav since its mine is my Shotgun only server Called Mofo with a Shogtun. With wall jumping and crazy pushback force from the bullets to make your enemies fly back fast and die while hitting a wall :) or just fly back off the map and of course die....
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I'm actually quite happy about Steams push to add games to linux. It's actually bringing attention of the poor graphic performance in linux and people are actually interested in making it better finally. That and I can finally play some decent games in linux, despite the poorer performance, it's good enough for me not to have to reboot to Windows.
Unless you've got developer credits, you're just a poser talking out his ass.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I don't pretend that it's for people who want the highest performance from the latest games or anything approaching that.
But if you look at the Dota2 Vulkan and the Unigine results, it is approaching that. Vulkan on Linux within 1.5% of windows on AMD and 9% on nVidia. Not that OpenGL is any slouch - Unigine OpenGL are within 9% of windows DirectX, showing the huge difference between native support and translation layers. But developers already voted with their allegiance: few had the luxury of supporting two dissimilar rendering platforms and almost all picked the one with the biggest market and modest performance advantage.
That equation changes now. See this this or this if you have any doubts. The new equation is, if you want one platform that delivers top performance across Android and Windows you go with Vulkan, end of story. Desktop Linux is the lucky beneficiary of that.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
This is awesome news. I cant wait to run games on Linux that were released in 2006.
Of course, that person would also have to put up with the constant malware threats, the nuisance of Windows Update, the lack of a central package manager, and the general asshattery of Microsoft including its desire to spy on its paying customers.
#1 has never been a problem, it's extremely difficult to catch malware if you use legit sources for games, software and media. Fir everything else there's isolated VMs to do crazy stuff on. #2 is NOT a nuisance, if you care to spend 2 minutes configuring it properly. #3 is actually a strong point IMO. #4 is easily avoided if you download one of the many available simple tools and spend 2 minutes clicking on checkboxes.
Well, starting with Windows 8 there is a central package manager - it's called the Microsoft Windows Store (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/windows?icid=en_US_Store_UH_apps_Win). *But* it has it's own issues - regarding licensing, usages, and more. They do (did?) have a relatively friendly Open-Source policy, but primarily to try to grab market share; however, even that hasn't really helped them gain any traction.
And yet people still complain...And no, I'm no fan of it.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)