Author Topic: FreeBSD vs Windows: OpenGL Performance  (Read 2878 times)

toadlife

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 730
  • Kudos: 376
    • http://toadlife.net
Re: FreeBSD vs Windows: OpenGL Performance
« Reply #30 on: 6 July 2005, 19:15 »
Quote from: e7ement
Of coarse BSD will have better frames... SP2 has many un-needed services running. This is common sense and you did not need to bench.

Windows was not running any other programs, except for Geoshell, which is a lightweight explorer replacement. There was no AV or Anti-Spyware running and the firewall was turned off. The difference in idle memory used by Windows/BSD was actually very little. I would say about 87MB for BSD and 125MB in use for Windows. Ina system with 512MB ram, that's nothing.

Quote from: e7ement
try tweaking and modifying xp until it uses the same amount of ram as BSD then bench. It's like comparing a race between 2 cars, but one car has a bunch of shit that weighs it down inside of it.

Modern operating systems page out ram for programs that are not doing anything and allocate physical memory for programs that are active. If there were any shortage of memory there would have been hard disk activity when the games were running. In both OS's there was no hard disk activity aside from the initial loading of the maps.

Quote from: e7ement
if you were going to use stock settings, there was no point of benching, FreeBSD would win obviusly(sp).

How would it obviously win? It sure as hell didn't obviously win with Quake III.
:)

adiment

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 575
  • Kudos: 519
Re: FreeBSD vs Windows: OpenGL Performance
« Reply #31 on: 6 July 2005, 19:46 »
Quote from: toadlife
It sure as hell didn't obviously win with Quake III.

the only reason it didn't was because of GL extentions. :thumbdwn:

toadlife

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 730
  • Kudos: 376
    • http://toadlife.net
Re: FreeBSD vs Windows: OpenGL Performance
« Reply #32 on: 6 July 2005, 21:02 »
What results were you looking at? Even with GL Ext disabled, WIndows beat out FreeBSD in all resolutions except for 1600x1200, and even at 1600x1200 the difference is tiny.

I can go around disabling all the services in the world in Windows, but it's not going to yield 20 extra frames per second.

I've give it a try later on. I'll disable a bunch of services and redo some of the benchmarks to see if there is any improvement. I seriously doubt if there will be any.
:)

toadlife

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 730
  • Kudos: 376
    • http://toadlife.net
Re: FreeBSD vs Windows: OpenGL Performance
« Reply #33 on: 6 July 2005, 22:24 »
Okay, while scarfing down PB&J's on my lunch break I loaded Windows up and disabled the following services in Windows:

Quote
3dm
automatic Updates
computer browser
distributed link
error reporting service
help and support
ipsec services
print spooler
remote registry
secondary logon
security center
server
tcppi netbios helpoer
task scheduler
themes
web client
windows firewall
warsvr
windows time
wireless zero configuration
workstation

This brought down the memory usage in Windows to 85MB. That's two less MB than FreeBSD without X loaded. I loaded AAO up and did a couple of tests:

Mountian Pass no AA/no AF
1600x1200 New results: 48FPS    Old Results: 48fps
640x480   New results: 59FPS    Old Results: 57Fps

Mountain pass 4xaa / 4x af
1600x1200 New Results: 15FPS    Old Results: 14FPS


The difference is miniscule.

Now I have to go back and turn all my services back on. :mad:
:)