Valve's Source Engine Runs Better on Linux Than Windows

[yuval152]

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.

I personally can't tell the difference,google 30 FPS vs 60 FPS in forums you will see alot of people who can't tell too.


And I didn't read the website because it's literally a wall of text.

 

[BENZOOKA]

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.

I personally can't tell the difference,google 30 FPS vs 60 FPS in forums you will see alot of people who can't tell too.


And I didn't read the website because it's literally a wall of text.

Just as I didn't read your response, because that would've been a waste of time. I might as well google if Twilight is the best movie ever, to access tens of thousands of "OMG YES!1" answers to that, yet I wouldn't draw any conclusions from those.

 

[yuval152]

You can just say that I am wrong,no need to be rude ^_^.

 

[Bigeyez]

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.

I seriously doubt a computer thats running a game at 1 FPS will magically run it at 46 FPS just by switching Linux. Thats not what the article proved. All it proved is that on a really high end rig they were able to achieve a max performance benchmark 45 fps higher then what they got on windows. And that was after hardware manufactorers themselves tweaked both systems.

 

[Bigeyez]

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.

I personally can't tell the difference,google 30 FPS vs 60 FPS in forums you will see alot of people who can't tell too.


And I didn't read the website because it's literally a wall of text.

Just as I didn't read your response, because that would've been a waste of time. I might as well google if Twilight is the best movie ever, to access tens of thousands of "OMG YES!1" answers to that, yet I wouldn't draw any conclusions from those.

You can just say that I am wrong,no need to be rude ^_^.

I certianly can't tell the difference of a game running past 30-40 FPS. I have World of Warcraft running right now and supposedly it's running at 127 FPS. To me it doesn't look any different then when it ran on my older comp at 40 FPS. I'd argue most people couldn't either.

Don't know why people have to get so uppity about stuff like that.

 

[BENZOOKA]

You can just say that I am wrong,no need to be rude ^_^.

Sorry about that. It's just such a common misconception.

 

[Spitfire]

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.

Yes, and if we weren't talking about a product that is specifically designed for PC gamers who are either using Linux, or are on the fence about using it, then you might actually have a point there.

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)

First of all, I've already demonstrated to you that Mac OSX is actually a very healthy gaming platform, and is most certainly not deemed pointless, by either publishers or developers, so I'm not sure I see the point in that comparison.

Second of all, let's look at this in perspective.

Linux is an operating system that has way better performance than Windows, and can easily run even on low-end systems, it's technically superior to Windows or Mac OSX, and most importantly of all, it's free.

As you might imagine, there are a lot of people who would want to use Linux, and yet they don't. Want to guess what one of the major reasons for that is? I'll give you a hint: it has something to do with it not being very gamer-friendly.
Valve know this, and they've taken major steps towards rectifying that. How profitable their efforts will turn out to be, remains to be seen, but there is considerable potential here.

 

[NLS]

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.

Oh come on, that's the oldest myth of the interwebs.
Ever noticed strobing and blurry image in movies? Yes, movies only run at 24fps, so the comparison here isn't exactly gold, but once you see The Hobbit in 48fps you'll suddenly realise that the 30fps myth is all bull and shit.
The reason we've been spoon-fed 30fps is because of several reasons, most of which are due to age old technical limitations. NTSC's 60Hz (interlaced into 30 frames) comes from the fact that AC in the U.S has a frequency of 60Hz. Just because 30 frames used to be the standard, doesn't mean that's how the human eye and brain works, at all.

What I can tell you though, is that you won't notice much difference on a monitor that only outputs at 60Hz once you go beyond those 60 frames per second. Simply because the monitor won't output more than 60fps. There are however 120Mhz monitors out there and higher.

EDIT: Thea reason people are so "uppidity" about this issue, is that every time someone mentions the 30/60fps eye myth, and nobody calls them out on it, someone else is gonna take that as fact and continue spreading the word at a later stage.

 

[praetor_alpha]

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.

They did. And pretty much for the reasons you suspected. 303.4 fps.

http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/

 

[Bigeyez]

First of all, I've already demonstrated to you that Mac OSX is actually a very healthy gaming platform, and is most certainly not deemed pointless, by either publishers or developers, so I'm not sure I see the point in that comparison.

Second of all, let's look at this in perspective.

Linux is an operating system that has way better performance than Windows, and can easily run even on low-end systems, it's technically superior to Windows or Mac OSX, and most importantly of all, it's free.

As you might imagine, there are a lot of people who would want to use Linux, and yet they don't. Want to guess what one of the major reasons for that is? I'll give you a hint: it has something to do with it not being very gamer-friendly.
Valve know this, and they've taken major steps towards rectifying that. How profitable their efforts will turn out to be, remains to be seen, but there is considerable potential here.

Mac OSX is a very healthy gaming platform? Wow I think thats the first time I've seen someone actually NOT complain about how most games either don't come out for Mac at all or they have to wait months for games to make it there.... Do you use a Mac for gaming instead of a PC? I ask because I seriously have never seen someone who insists that everything is fine and dandy with gaming on a Mac. Frankly if I owned only a Mac I would be bummed about constantly getting the shaft from most devs and publishers.

Again I'm not talking about the performance of Linux. Maybe YOU want to play games on Linux but until developers and publishers support the OS your options will be limited. And a Developer/publisher doesn't have much reason to support an OS if that OS is a very distant third to Windows and Mac. While it's hard to say EXACTLY how many people use Linux by the very nature of there being so many different versions and purposes go ahead and google "how many people use Linux". I did. And what I find is that the numbers are all around 5-8% of the total web connected devices, including mobile connections. Those are hardly numbers that scream to publisher "MAKE GAMES FOR MEEEEEEEEE!!!!".

Once again my point is if people want Linux to become a bastion for games they need to find ways to increase the userbase for it. Devs and Pubs will then follow the customer to whatever OS they use because they of course want their money. Edit: And to expand growing their user base involves a lot more then putting steam on linux. That would still only attract the hardcore gamer. Thats a far cry from mainstream. And a far cry from generating the tens of millions it would take to even take a FEW percents worth of market share away from Windows and Mac.

What I'm NOT doing is bashing linux or talking in any way about how it performs.

 

[yuval152]

You can just say that I am wrong,no need to be rude ^_^.

Sorry about that. It's just such a common misconception.

I can understand that.(people making common mistakes is annyoing)

 

[marurder]

This is a good thing, a real PC gaming competitor is what is needed now. Microsoft knows there isn't as much money in PC gaming now because of consoles, pads, smartphones etc etc. So I can sympathize with them for moving to a more home/office setup.

That said, they are shooting themselves in the foot. Still tons of money to be made.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

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.

I seriously doubt a computer thats running a game at 1 FPS will magically run it at 46 FPS just by switching Linux. Thats not what the article proved. All it proved is that on a really high end rig they were able to achieve a max performance benchmark 45 fps higher then what they got on windows. And that was after hardware manufactorers themselves tweaked both systems.

Yeah I realise I was being stupid for a minute, but my point is that Linux seems to have more potential to be a great OS for gaming, despite what gamers think of it.

And an increase is an increase at the end of the day, squeezing out as much performance as possible is important when gaming.

 

[dessertmonkeyjk]

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.

I personally can't tell the difference,google 30 FPS vs 60 FPS in forums you will see alot of people who can't tell too.


And I didn't read the website because it's literally a wall of text.

Are you sure? I can tell the difference quite easily between 30 and 60 FPS. If you played Mass Effect 2 on PC, you can tell when an FMV is playing by the framerate difference.

 

[Twilight_guy]

If people actually do start switching to Linux in mass (It won't happen; Games are a part of computing but there not some be-all that controls where people go), I wonder if they will get some better support for working with drivers. I know I've had some problems with that and your average Joe Blow is to have difficulties too, especial when lots of new computers means lots of new computer configurations.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Not really all that surprised. All that bloating in Windows has to affect something.

 

[Spitfire]

First of all, I've already demonstrated to you that Mac OSX is actually a very healthy gaming platform, and is most certainly not deemed pointless, by either publishers or developers, so I'm not sure I see the point in that comparison.

Second of all, let's look at this in perspective.

Linux is an operating system that has way better performance than Windows, and can easily run even on low-end systems, it's technically superior to Windows or Mac OSX, and most importantly of all, it's free.

As you might imagine, there are a lot of people who would want to use Linux, and yet they don't. Want to guess what one of the major reasons for that is? I'll give you a hint: it has something to do with it not being very gamer-friendly.
Valve know this, and they've taken major steps towards rectifying that. How profitable their efforts will turn out to be, remains to be seen, but there is considerable potential here.

Mac OSX is a very healthy gaming platform? Wow I think thats the first time I've seen someone actually NOT complain about how most games either don't come out for Mac at all or they have to wait months for games to make it there.... Do you use a Mac for gaming instead of a PC? I ask because I seriously have never seen someone who insists that everything is fine and dandy with gaming on a Mac. Frankly if I owned only a Mac I would be bummed about constantly getting the shaft from most devs and publishers.

I don't know how fast games are usually ported to Mac OSX, but what I do know, is that the OS has a substantial selection of games, which certainly doesn't warrant labeling it a "pointless" gaming platform.

snip

Once again my point is if people want Linux to become a bastion for games they need to find ways to increase the userbase for it. Devs and Pubs will then follow the customer to whatever OS they use because they of course want their money.

We're going back and forth now.

What this all comes down to is that Linux is currently a pain in the ass to develop for, and Valve is trying to change that. If successful, Linux will become more accessible as a gaming platform. What lies beyond that, is only speculation at this point.

 

[ToastyMozart]

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.

And that can hopefully change if a big entertainment software company begins to support it, like, in this case, Steam. They will release a statement saying that they now have Linux support (aided in the instance that Windows 8 actually does bomb like a B2), which will pique some interest. Then some people will try it out and go "holy crap, my $200 netbook can run Portal 2 at 40 FPS!," hopefully spreading the word.

I'm not saying it's guaranteed to happen, but a big name like Steam supporting it should help raise awareness of the OS.

 

[NKRevan]

Doesn't anyone else think it is a little suspicious that Valve is trumpeting Linux?

I mean here we have a platform that, so far, has been completely free. You had basically no native applications that cost you anything.

Enter Steam...the first Linux-native application which makes you spend money. How convenient for Steam, isn't it?

I could just be jaded, but I am certain that there is a lot more financial reasoning behind the sudden appreciation of Linux and the bashing of Windows.

Other than that, I honestly don't care which OS I use, as long as I don't have to have a multitude of them. I mean, multiple download services are fine and dandy, but multiple OS? No thanks.