Faster Zombies(blogs.valvesoftware.com)
blogs.valvesoftware.com
Faster Zombies
http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/
16 comments
Valve are quite concerned about Microsoft's moves with the Windows 8 Store. Linux is a less risky bet than you might think.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/steams-newell-windows-...
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/steams-newell-windows-...
I had a feeling that the Linux version would actually run faster. I can't put my finger on why that is though. Valve says it's because of the underlying effeciency of the kernel.
However, I'm still very much concerned about the things that come with proprietary games on the Linux platform. On the one hand it will open up Linux for a lot of users but then again I want a fully free platform without any DRM drenched material or proprietary code. This is what made Linux so powerful in the first place.
However, I'm still very much concerned about the things that come with proprietary games on the Linux platform. On the one hand it will open up Linux for a lot of users but then again I want a fully free platform without any DRM drenched material or proprietary code. This is what made Linux so powerful in the first place.
Indeed tsahyt, I'm also a bit concerned. I'm actually divided here. Besides the "flashplugin" package, I don't have any more proprietary packages in my laptop (I didn't remove the kernel proprietary blobs too), but I really want to install Steam and play Counter Strike 1.6 on Arch. It would be amazing. I haven't made up my mind yet, but I'll probably end up installing Steam, disregarding DRM and closed source software.
Linux hasn't been free from DRM or blobs for quite a while. Official drivers are often closed source, things running in Wine are often closed source, codecs are sometimes non-free, etc. You can get by without installing proprietary code right now, but you can do the same when Steam and various games are on the platform. It's not like the presence of Steam automatically locks the source on the existing applications.
You give examples of blobs, not DRM. Unless you are referring to the direct rendering manager, I have not encountered any DRM in years of using Linux on the desktop.
You're right, I was thinking of Mono/Moonlight but had forgotten that this was a DRM-free implementation.
Although Linus doesn't feel too negatively against DRM on Linux.
http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2003042401126OSKNLL
Although Linus doesn't feel too negatively against DRM on Linux.
http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2003042401126OSKNLL
I think proprietary code and paid apps will make linux powerful.
"After this work, Left 4 Dead 2 is running at 315 FPS on Linux. That the Linux version runs faster than the Windows version (270.6)"
I can see hope for linux in the gaming industry!!
I can see hope for linux in the gaming industry!!
To be fair...
"Interestingly, in the process of working with hardware vendors we also sped up the OpenGL implementation on Windows. Left 4 Dead 2 is now running at 303.4 FPS with that configuration."
"Interestingly, in the process of working with hardware vendors we also sped up the OpenGL implementation on Windows. Left 4 Dead 2 is now running at 303.4 FPS with that configuration."
It still implies the Direct3D implementation stayed at 270fps. I wonder how Windows+OpenGL fared before the optimisations; presumably it was lower than 270 or OpenGL would have been the baseline.
Well, that was quite useless and I'm surprised no one has mentioned it.
1. What you really care about is consistently having a framerate of more than 60 fps. A higher fps count can actually be worse.
2. Relatively few linux users have a gtx 680. It's a 500$ graphics card and there just aren't that many linux applications who needs it.
3. If this down-scales linearly, which it might not, we are looking at around 3 fps difference at 60 fps.
1. What you really care about is consistently having a framerate of more than 60 fps. A higher fps count can actually be worse.
2. Relatively few linux users have a gtx 680. It's a 500$ graphics card and there just aren't that many linux applications who needs it.
3. If this down-scales linearly, which it might not, we are looking at around 3 fps difference at 60 fps.
270.6 to 315 fps is a 14 per cent speedup, or 8.5 fps at 60 fps. That's pretty big.
But that's only if it scales linearly. I suspect most of the speed-ups are per-frame, in which case we have a 500 microsecond speed-up, which is just over 2 fps at 60fps.
But that's only if it scales linearly. I suspect most of the speed-ups are per-frame, in which case we have a 500 microsecond speed-up, which is just over 2 fps at 60fps.
Relatively few linux users might have a gtx 680 but there are a large amount of windows gamers that have a card similar and may switch to linux if it had steam. Given that 60fps is all that's required it also means that you don't need a gtx 680, a $200 card will probably easily get you 60fps, a lot of the nvidia laptop cards will also probably be enough.
Link to the same article which appeared on the front page : http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4327908
What I'd really be interested in is a comparison of how the newest generation of Intel graphics compares between the two.
most studios would have avoided even trying to work on a linux port to their games often citing that there arent enough users to justify the engineering time. yet the unintended consequence of this [allegedly bad business decision] was that they found sizable optimizations to even their flagship Windows version as a by-product of linux optimizations. this in turn brings the system requirements down for the game on Windows, more people can play it, and more profits. all because of the effort used to port to Linux.
cool stuff valve.