Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX

FreeBSD vs Windows: OpenGL Performance

<< < (5/7) > >>

toadlife:
I've posted some more benchmarks of Quake III. I am going to try and do a comparison of America's Army. I think I can benchmark it by  just loading the maps and viewing the fps. This won't be as good as doing a timedemo, but it's one of the only *modern* games available on both Windows and linux.

Kintaro:

--- Quote from: Put_lead_in_gates_head ---well i don't know any games that can run on both of them but i know lots of win games, but UT2004 is Direct 3D not OpenGL, my copy of UT2004 doesn't even support OpenGL , i have to chosse between Software and D3D rendering
--- End quote ---
You probably need to get drivers for your video card, I don't even play games and I know this. But it is a rough estimation that I am over fifty thousand times more intelligent than you. It amazes me how you manage to live in something that small.

Kintaro:

--- Quote from: 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?
--- End quote ---

 Why don't we all get our cameras and post our dongs.

toadlife:
Interesting. FreeBSD runs America's army faster than Windows - at *ALL* resolutions. I'll post the benchmarks soon.

Kintaro:

--- Quote from: toadlife ---I think you are right. FreeBSD's linux ABI support is extremely efficient, but I suspect there are certain features of the linux kernel that either can't or don't get emulated properly. I seem to remember similar behavior in America's Army when running it in FreeBSD - changing to lower resolutions would not help framerates very much. I would have to go back and verify that though.



There are none that fit that criteria.
--- End quote ---

There is an interesting fact that I will point out. The time I will point it out is now. The Linux Kernel has a major proformance option called "premptive kernel". I have no idea exactly what this means however I am well aware of its physical effects on the system. Basically: without it Linux runs as slow as Steve Blammer's metabolism. I have no clue in the entire wet Universe if FreeBSD does whatever this (preemptive kernel) does. Maybe look into that, my dear toadlife.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page