Valve's Source Engine Runs Better on Linux Than Windows

Spitfire

New member
Dec 27, 2008
472
0
0
Bigeyez said:
rustybroomhandle said:
Bigeyez said:
Yes this is awesome because the last time I was playing a game I said to myself "you know what would make this better! If it ran at 315 FPS instead of 270 FPS!!"..... /rolls eyes.

Sorry but I'm just not buying any of these "look at how great linux is!" stories that have been cropping up recently until linux actually does something for it's potential customer base besides yell "look we are open!!!! so much better then windows!!!!!11!!11!!!one!!1". Linux will get absolutely nowhere as long as it remains a niche OS for the hardcore computerphile.
It's not really the point of this comparison to be a pissing contest. The thing take from this is that this completely tramples over the opinion that Linux sucks for gaming. It can game just fine - just needs more games.
They just need to change so much more about Linux before it can even become the widely known in the mainstream market. If they need an example of how to make open software successful, look at Android. Just about any common joe sixpack knows what Android is, or at least what it's used for. Ask someone who isn't into technology what Linux is and they'll likely respond with "what?".
By that same logic, one could ask: what is Mac OSX? Or indeed, what is Microsoft Windows?

And realistically until it gets a much larger user base you won't see publishers or devs putting games on Linux. Besides the oddity like Valve (which to me this whole thing just REEKS of the type of PR they love to do to keep themselves looking like dalrings to certain people) which publisher or dev is realistically going to put games out on Linux for sale?

So Linux has many more problems to solve besides just being able to run games. OS X can run games but how many devs and pubs design games for it?
Quite a few, apparently [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mac_OS_X_games].

In fact, Linux itself isn't doing that bad either [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Linux_games]. It just needs a strong wave of games to propel it into mainstream, something that a notable digital distributor like Steam can certainly help with.
 

Waaghpowa

Needs more Dakka
Apr 13, 2010
3,073
0
0
Rainboq said:
Makes sense, considering just how much more processor efficient Linux is.
Not just that, but a whole lot less crap running. My Ubuntu partition on my hard disc boots about as fast as my Windows 7 partition on the SSD.
 

80Maxwell08

New member
Jul 14, 2010
1,102
0
0
rustybroomhandle said:
80Maxwell08 said:
Wait I just read that link and it said they were using a 32 bit version of linux and a 64 bit of windows 7 for this test. I don't know anything about linux but is it different from Windows in the memory cap for RAM on 32 bit versions?
Depends on the one's distribution. A 32-bit distro with a real-time kernel does not have the 4GB memory cap. There's also a kernel setting called Physical Address Extension that's enabled on some. It will allow up to 64GB of total RAM, but still just up to 4GB per process.
So basically it will use the extra ram just not one one single thing? Well then I wonder how the 64 bit version is going to perform.
 

thesilentman

What this
Jun 14, 2012
4,513
0
0
Bigeyez said:
Yes this is awesome because the last time I was playing a game I said to myself "you know what would make this better! If it ran at 315 FPS instead of 270 FPS!!"..... /rolls eyes.

Sorry but I'm just not buying any of these "look at how great linux is!" stories that have been cropping up recently until linux actually does something for it's potential customer base besides yell "look we are open!!!! so much better then windows!!!!!11!!11!!!one!!1". Linux will get absolutely nowhere as long as it remains a niche OS for the hardcore computerphile.
Chill man, download Ubuntu and at the very least try it. The only difference between Windows and Linux is that they're based on different kernels. Other than that, the rest really is for the geeks. Oops, that's actually a big difference. I don't know that much about kernels.

But, if you need a list, here:

-Linux is processor efficient. Someone said this already and its a big deal for games.
-Linux has software equivalent to Office and Visual Studio for free. In case you need examples, the LibreOffice suite and CodeBlocks.
-Linux will run on any pile of shit that can handle 2000/XP. Good for reinstating computers without pirating Windows (I still don't support piracy)
-Ubuntu, what Valve's experimenting with, is really user friendly. Think Mac file system with Windows navigation and the dock on the left.
-Speaking of Ubuntu, there are different distributions (distros) of Linux that range from user friendly to geek friendly.
-Linux is not as bloated as Windows. Again, see kernels along with only the bare essentials on installation (office suite, software center, and computer tools)
-Linux is open source. Free, but often, like the many perks PC gaming has, supported by a strong userbase.
-Anyone can support it. The fact that it's open source means that anyone can create fixes without being legally harrassed.

So that's all I can think of. I also have nothing against geeks. Annnd, I Don't Support Piracy.
 

Bigeyez

New member
Apr 26, 2009
1,135
0
0
Spitfire said:
Bigeyez said:
rustybroomhandle said:
Bigeyez said:
Yes this is awesome because the last time I was playing a game I said to myself "you know what would make this better! If it ran at 315 FPS instead of 270 FPS!!"..... /rolls eyes.

Sorry but I'm just not buying any of these "look at how great linux is!" stories that have been cropping up recently until linux actually does something for it's potential customer base besides yell "look we are open!!!! so much better then windows!!!!!11!!11!!!one!!1". Linux will get absolutely nowhere as long as it remains a niche OS for the hardcore computerphile.
It's not really the point of this comparison to be a pissing contest. The thing take from this is that this completely tramples over the opinion that Linux sucks for gaming. It can game just fine - just needs more games.
They just need to change so much more about Linux before it can even become the widely known in the mainstream market. If they need an example of how to make open software successful, look at Android. Just about any common joe sixpack knows what Android is, or at least what it's used for. Ask someone who isn't into technology what Linux is and they'll likely respond with "what?".
By that same logic, one could ask: what is Mac OSX? Or indeed, what is Microsoft Windows?

And realistically until it gets a much larger user base you won't see publishers or devs putting games on Linux. Besides the oddity like Valve (which to me this whole thing just REEKS of the type of PR they love to do to keep themselves looking like dalrings to certain people) which publisher or dev is realistically going to put games out on Linux for sale?

So Linux has many more problems to solve besides just being able to run games. OS X can run games but how many devs and pubs design games for it?
Quite a few, apparently [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mac_OS_X_games].

In fact, Linux itself isn't doing that bad either [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Linux_games]. It just needs a strong wave of games to propel it into mainstream, something that a notable digital distributor like Steam can certainly help with.
We seem to have very different definitions of what Mainstream is. And yes ask the random joe blow what windows or mac os x are and they will most likely have some sort of answer besides what. These are household brand names that even people who know nothing about computers will most likely know.

To repeat my point the problem isn't Linux itself. It's the fact that because how the OS has been handled it is incredibly niche and only used by people who are really into technology. Most gamers (read console/casual gamers) probably haven't even heard of Linux let alone the wider mainstream public.

In order for Publishers to give a damn about Linux they need to capture more of a user base, plain and simple. Until they do that, games on Linux will be regulated to the niche and odd dev that ports to it.

If most publishers deem it pointless to port games to Mac OS X what makes you think Linux with it's tiny tiny tiny userbase when compared to apple or windows will suddenly attract their attention and money. (Hint: Steam definitely ain't it)

Edit: To Expand lets take a look at the list of games you linked for OS X. Nearly ALL of them are ports. I'd even take a guess that the majority of those ports weren't launched until WAAAAAY after Console/PC versions were released. If even OS X is regulated to waiting months for ports of games what makes you think Linux will somehow become the main focus of devs or pubs? It won't.

And really that SUCKS. Because I would LOVE to see Windows get some real compitition. God knows thats the only way they would be sure to put out quality product. It would probably get Apple to step their game up as well.

Hell Linux becoming a true contender would benefit people using PCs in so many ways, but I just honestly don't see it happening any time soon.
 

Bigeyez

New member
Apr 26, 2009
1,135
0
0
thesilentman said:
Chill man, download Ubuntu and at the very least try it. The only difference between Windows and Linux is that they're based on different kernels. Other than that, the rest really is for the geeks. Oops, that's actually a big difference. I don't know that much about kernels.

But, if you need a list, here:

-Linux is processor efficient. Someone said this already and its a big deal for games.
-Linux has software equivalent to Office and Visual Studio for free. In case you need examples, the LibreOffice suite and CodeBlocks.
-Linux will run on any pile of shit that can handle 2000/XP. Good for reinstating computers without pirating Windows (I still don't support piracy)
-Ubuntu, what Valve's experimenting with, is really user friendly. Think Mac file system with Windows navigation and the dock on the left.
-Speaking of Ubuntu, there are different distributions (distros) of Linux that range from user friendly to geek friendly.
-Linux is not as bloated as Windows. Again, see kernels along with only the bare essentials on installation (office suite, software center, and computer tools)
-Linux is open source. Free, but often, like the many perks PC gaming has, supported by a strong userbase.
-Anyone can support it. The fact that it's open source means that anyone can create fixes without being legally harrassed.

So that's all I can think of. I also have nothing against geeks. Annnd, I Don't Support Piracy.
I am chill. If you check out my other posts you'll see what I'm trying to say is that the reason games aren't on Linux isn't the OS itself, but that it has such a tiny userbase most devs and pubs will just ignore it. Why spend man hours and money making a port to an OS that most of the mainstream public doesn't even know exists.

Until Linux overcomes that it will be an OS regulated to the niche hardcore pc technophile audience. And hence will only have the rare port every so often by some random indie dev or something like that.
 

Skee

New member
Dec 1, 2009
16
0
0
Bigeyez said:
They just need to change so much more about Linux before it can even become the widely known in the mainstream market. If they need an example of how to make open software successful, look at Android. Just about any common joe sixpack knows what Android is, or at least what it's used for. Ask someone who isn't into technology what Linux is and they'll likely respond with "what?".
Android runs on a modified linux kernel. As does a lot of hardware.
But, ok, that isn't too relevant to your argument.
What is relevant is that most modern distros, like Ubuntu, are just as user friendly
as windows.

For a non-technical user, they are more like Windows than Windows 8 seems to be, really.
 

Bigeyez

New member
Apr 26, 2009
1,135
0
0
Skee said:
Bigeyez said:
They just need to change so much more about Linux before it can even become the widely known in the mainstream market. If they need an example of how to make open software successful, look at Android. Just about any common joe sixpack knows what Android is, or at least what it's used for. Ask someone who isn't into technology what Linux is and they'll likely respond with "what?".
Android runs on a modified linux kernel. As does a lot of hardware.
But, ok, that isn't too relevant to your argument.
What is relevant is that most modern distros, like Ubuntu, are just as user friendly
as windows.

For a non-technical user, they are more like Windows than Windows 8 seems to be, really.
Everyone quoting me seems to think I'm somehow bashing Linux when that is not the case at all.

The fact remains that people will know what Android is while having no clue Linux exists. So no the fact that Android runs on a modified linux kernel IS NOT relevant because that won't magically give Linux the user base to make developers and publisher give a damn about it.

Once again if you read my other posts what I'm saying is that until someone figures out a way to get linux onto a more substantial user base most developers and publishers will continue to ignore it. I am NOT saying there is something bad or wrong about Linux itself.
 

praetor_alpha

LOL, Canada!
Mar 4, 2010
338
0
0
koroem said:
Because Direct X is junk. End of story. Devs have been complaining about it for years. Consoles still stomp Direct X because of draw calls alone.
Xbox 360 (as well as the original) uses DirectX. That's why it's called Xbox and not OpenGLbox or something.

mad825 said:
Using FPSs as a frame of measurement? I don't really think that's the right way to go, most people will be capped at 60 and anything more than 60 is consider as a waste. A high FPS doesn't always mean that it performs better in general.
Only if VSync is enabled. There's network/input processing lag, but not much else that can be boiled down to a nice number that can be compared.
 

mad825

New member
Mar 28, 2010
3,379
0
0
praetor_alpha said:
mad825 said:
Using FPSs as a frame of measurement? I don't really think that's the right way to go, most people will be capped at 60 and anything more than 60 is consider as a waste. A high FPS doesn't always mean that it performs better in general.
Only if VSync is enabled. There's network/input processing lag, but not much else that can be boiled down to a nice number that can be compared.
It's really more of a hardware problem. Still, my point remains, 60+ FPS is considered as redundant frames.

Still, could've they done something better? You know, like provide visual evidence like a video instead of a bunch dreary if not questionable statistics?
 

Braedan

New member
Sep 14, 2010
697
0
0
I have to say, all the people saying that Ubuntu is as user friendly as Windows are a little loopy. Having to enter shell commands just to get a program to install is fuckin stupid.

On a side note, I would love a little competition from Linux. I enjoyed my experiences with it.
 

Penguinis Weirdus

New member
Mar 16, 2012
67
0
0
Braedan said:
I have to say, all the people saying that Ubuntu is as user friendly as Windows are a little loopy. Having to enter shell commands just to get a program to install is fuckin stupid.

On a side note, I would love a little competition from Linux. I enjoyed my experiences with it.
You do know that Ubuntu comes with a software centre. Which is fairly user-friendly if a little buggy (then again I haven't updated my Ubuntu VM from 11.04 since I'm running Arch NOW thats user unfriendly.)
Also emacs sucks and Vim is teh AWEsomes!111!!
Wait... which forum am I on again?
 

CardinalPiggles

New member
Jun 24, 2010
3,226
0
0
Bigeyez said:
Yes this is awesome because the last time I was playing a game I said to myself "you know what would make this better! If it ran at 315 FPS instead of 270 FPS!!"..... /rolls eyes.

Sorry but I'm just not buying any of these "look at how great linux is!" stories that have been cropping up recently until linux actually does something for it's potential customer base besides yell "look we are open!!!! so much better then windows!!!!!11!!11!!!one!!1". Linux will get absolutely nowhere as long as it remains a niche OS for the hardcore computerphile.
A difference of 45FPS is a lot when you have a low end machine. I'd rather my game ran at 46FPS than 1FPS thanks.
 

yuval152

New member
Jul 6, 2011
1,450
0
0
NLS said:
Bigeyez said:
Yes this is awesome because the last time I was playing a game I said to myself "you know what would make this better! If it ran at 315 FPS instead of 270 FPS!!"..... /rolls eyes.

Sorry but I'm just not buying any of these "look at how great linux is!" stories that have been cropping up recently until linux actually does something for it's potential customer base besides yell "look we are open!!!! so much better then windows!!!!!11!!11!!!one!!1". Linux will get absolutely nowhere as long as it remains a niche OS for the hardcore computerphile.
The machine they used was obviously overkill for a source engine game released in 2009. So an increase from 270 to 315 FPS isn't noticeable for the end user. But if this was a more recent game running on a mid-range computer at around 45FPS, and then shown to run at a stable 60FPS under linux. Then you'll actually notice the difference.

If Valve succeeds in fully porting their games and Steam to Linux, you'll actually see people switching over. Partially because of the mess that is W8, and also because a lot of people have been on the fence about Linux for years, but never done the big switch because of lack of games.
After 30 FPS the human eye can't notice a difference,most people won't even notice it.(ofc some will but the majority counts)

OT:I saw this coming since linux is better at performance.
 

Braedan

New member
Sep 14, 2010
697
0
0
Penguinis Weirdus said:
Braedan said:
I have to say, all the people saying that Ubuntu is as user friendly as Windows are a little loopy. Having to enter shell commands just to get a program to install is fuckin stupid.

On a side note, I would love a little competition from Linux. I enjoyed my experiences with it.
You do know that Ubuntu comes with a software centre. Which is fairly user-friendly if a little buggy (then again I haven't updated my Ubuntu VM from 11.04 since I'm running Arch NOW thats user unfriendly.)
Also emacs sucks and Vim is teh AWEsomes!111!!
Wait... which forum am I on again?
True. I know that. But what if you want something that isn't on the software centre? It become significantly more difficult. And try explaining to my Grandmother how to add download repos.

On Windows you go to a site, click the big download button, and then an auto-extractor does all the work for you.
On Linux you pretty much have to know it's on the download centre or else you need to learn how to enter commands in to the terminal.

I like Ubuntu. It's just NOT a simple replacement for Windows. Unless they've changed a bunch in the last 4 months.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2020
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
On second thought, nevermind. I don't want to debate Windows vs Linux.
 

koroem

New member
Jul 12, 2010
307
0
0
praetor_alpha said:
koroem said:
Because Direct X is junk. End of story. Devs have been complaining about it for years. Consoles still stomp Direct X because of draw calls alone.
Xbox 360 (as well as the original) uses DirectX. That's why it's called Xbox and not OpenGLbox or something.
I never said the xbox doesn't use direct x. I said Direct X for PC's is junk. It needs a real overhaul. Consoles draw call efficiency is leagues beyond what the PC can do using Direct X and this causes issues. If I recall correctly, consoles average around 10,000-20,000 calls per frame vs pc direct x's 5,000ish. Devs want direct to metal on PC, but they likely won't get it the same way they can with a console.


My point was OpenGL batched draw call efficiency is better than Direct X. Probably the reason Linux is seeing a benefit. I'd like to see that same openGL version running on Windows 7 and benched to compare.
 

BENZOOKA

This is the most wittiest title
Oct 26, 2009
3,920
0
0
yuval152 said:
After 30 FPS the human eye can't notice a difference,most people won't even notice it.(ofc some will but the majority counts)
You couldn't be more wrong. Seriously [http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm].

And when someone's being wrong in the Internet, it's a big deal.
 

Laughing Man

New member
Oct 10, 2008
1,715
0
0
I think we have all missed the point here gentlemen. Valve have decided to spend time and effort getting Steam and some or all of their Source games on to Linux when fact they could actually be working on some new games, like Half Life 3 maybe.

Steam on Linux is nothing, it won't increase the user base for Linux, in fact of late it seems Steam, valve and Gabe in general have gone real soft on Windows and the only reason they seem to be giving it to Linux now is because they just haven't got the meat to plain and straight release their own OS.

MS ain't gonna be scared of Steam appearing on Linux, Windows already has a vast and massive installed user base with an even more vast and installed software base. I can tell you right here and right now their is no way I would use Linux simply because I have no desire to have to rebuy my games once they get converted and that's assuming anyone beyond Valve bother to convert their games.

As for W8 being the big call for Linux migration... um no. You may see an uplift in W7, cause let's face it that isn't going anywhere anytime soon but no one is going to say I have Windows, I don;t like W8 so I am gonna go get myself a copy of Linux.