Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
FreeBSD vs Windows: OpenGL Performance
muzzy:
--- Quote from: WMD ---Muzzy - he disabled GL extensions in both versions. Read the top paragraph more carefully.
--- End quote ---
That's my point exactly. "Because it didn't work in freebsd, it was only fair to turn it off in windows". WTF? "Because performance in freebsd sucked, it was only fair to turn off all performance improving features in windows as well". Is this what it's saying? WHAT THE HECK IS BEING BENCHMARKED IN HERE, REALLY? Can you answer that? What real world thing does this benchmark measure? If it tests the driver implementations, why does one have to be handicapped when other one fails? Does this benchmark efficiency of library calls? The compiler that was used to compile the software for the specific platform? Anything at all?
To me, this "benchmark" makes no sense whatsoever, and the results aren't very interesting. It only displays what we all knew: windows is superior for this stuff, even if you have to artificially bring it down to same playing field with "competing" operating systems.
WMD:
--- Quote ---That's my point exactly. "Because it didn't work in freebsd, it was only fair to turn it off in windows". WTF? "Because performance in freebsd sucked, it was only fair to turn off all performance improving features in windows as well".
--- End quote ---
The GL extensions in BSD simply didn't work. They weren't slow. If something doesn't work, what's the purpose of using it in a benchmark? Are you saying that leaving them turned on in Windows would make this *more* fair somehow?
This benchmark is simply BSD vs. Windows in Quake 3, but he had to turn something off to make it work properly. Why is that such a mystery? Either way, the bigger problem is the sameness in the BSD framerates across all resolutions. Something else is wrong, and we still don't know who wins this battle, GL extensions or not.
muzzy:
So, we want to get some practical results about game performance on two different systems, and because performance features don't work on one platform, they have to be turned off on others to make comparison fair?
Do I have to bend an explanation from an iron wire so you'll get it, too? Heck, let's make opengl comparison ... I'll write software implementation, but I'll only implement ONE FUNCTION! Thus, we'll only benchmark that. As a result, we'll notice that my opengl implementation beats every other implementation in performance! Woo Yay! How about that? Flawed benchmark? So, how much do I have to implement before it stops being flawed? Oh, just basic functionality but anything that'd actually make a difference won't be used?
I can't see what your "fair" benchmark will tell. What do the values mean? Really, tell me, what significance do those numbers have? Of what practical or even theoretical use are they to anyone or anything?
Are we going to compare system bogomips next?
WMD:
--- Quote ---So, we want to get some practical results about game performance on two different systems, and because performance features don't work on one platform, they have to be turned off on others to make comparison fair?
--- End quote ---
Yeah, essentially. It's not FreeBSD's fault that the GL extensions don't work - they don't make them. Quake 3 even uses the Linux OpenGL AFAIK, so that also hurts. If there was a real FreeBSD version of Quake 3, I'd think GL extensions would work there. But there isn't, so they won't.
--- Quote ---Are we going to compare system bogomips next?
--- End quote ---
Sure, I have 5622.98. What's yours? :p
mobrien_12:
Maybe Heavy Gear 2?
And you can get it cheap at ebay.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version