Linux Higher FPS than Windows?
 

I'm asking because I keep hearing this claim, and I figure someone has to have some numbers/games/etc info on it.

For me though, it's not panning out that way with UT2004

I run slackware 9.1 but am using mandrake 10 (because of xfree 4.4) to play games. I'm using the latest fglrx radeon (3.9.0) driver. Here's a comparison.

Linux

Loadtime - Instant Action/16 bots = 15-25 seconds (Linux wins by 3x)
FPS - 20 average at 1600x1200 (Radeon 9800 pro)

Windows

Loadtime - Instant Action/16bots = 60-115 seconds
FPS - 35 average at 1600x1200

So, for me, linux is unplayable in UT2004.. not so much jumpy as disorienting with the low fps. Windows is playable. If I lower the resolution in linux my fps didn't seem to jump at all, but that may mean I have to do a complete game reload (maybe).

Anyhow, looking for other linux vs. windows comparisons. Perhaps everyone is running nvidia cards and their linux drivers are better than windows, but this seems not to be the case with ATI (if it were the case, then I would actually be disappointed in ATI ignoring their larger market segment, but I would like closer performance at least).

My two cents...
 

...although I've got a GeForce something-or-other in my computer now, I used to have a Radeon 8500LE 128mb, and as I recall both UT and Neverwinter ran fine. I'm sorry I don't have more exact data for you, but at least it may be a reassurance of ATI's non-desertion?

Laura

Why not just install XFree86 4.4.0 on your Slackware box, rather than having two separate distros?! It's not hard to install and they include complete instructions....the only reason I can think of for not installing it is because you have only a dialup connection and X11 is too big to download?

No, not what I meant. I have X4.4 in slackware and 4.3 in mandrake. ATI doesn't have drivers that work with 4.4

why not try xorg?

Have, it didn't work for me either.

And strangely it won't compile on my system unless I Have the XFree packages installed.. what's up with that? But anyway I compiled and installed it (which takes 30 mins or so) and it doesn't get the driver working properly.

its different for different hardware, different linux distro's, different games.

i dont re-install windows as often as i should.
after about a year, windows was in a very diseased state.

windows games were running faster in linux using wine than they were in windows.

but like i said, it all depsnds on sooo many different factors.
ive recently done a complete re-install of windows, so its healthy for now.
and when i shutdown all the virus scanners, spyware, adware, and other crap that accumulates in my taksbar, windows and linux perform almost exactly the same.

Someone ought to tell me then...I'm using them...

Rather than being sarcastic, why not enlighten me as to how you managed to do that? I know that the install doesn't just "work." And I've been going over this for weeks.

First, what distribution?
What kernel version?
XFree 4.4 or X.org?
Which fglrx driver version? 3.7.6 or 3.9.0?
Which XFree version was the driver for? XFree 4.3? There isn't a 4.4 one.

In general, Linux has been shown to have a higher FPS because most FPS and other games these days rely on Ram caching, et cetera, to display everything. Windows and other bloated WM's have much of a system's ram flagged unusable except by itself, lowering the amount of ram you have availible to play the game. With Linux, it is much easier to have a very limited number of services and processes running (also because there are less required) and as such have more ram availible, which oftentimes translates to higher FPSs

I'm interested in actual benchmarks which prove that. What FPS comes down to is not ram availability but the video card itself, and the drivers go into that. I think linux drivers are generally of a lower standard (at least the ATI ones) and thus slower fps occur, at least this has been my experience, and I'm reticent to believe otherwise without substantiation (I'm willing to take peoples word for it if they give me figures).