Support us on Patreon
PayPal
I decided to do a bit of a learning exercise today and do my first ever video comparison between two platforms. I picked Tomb Raider since that's what's hot right now. The performance difference between Windows 10 and Linux is quite large in Tomb Raider.
This is my first ever attempt, but I think it turned out reasonably well. The problem I've found is getting a smooth video of the benchmark on Linux, as all recording software made it slightly stutter (with no effect on actual FPS, tested against my previous results). This happens in some games, others are fine.
The second issue is the Tomb Raider benchmark is actually a little different each time with the animations that happen and their timings. Even in this video the timing of the animations at one point is different, but the rest is fine.
To note: This was on the exact same settings, double checked. High preset, motion blur off.
Tested on
Linux Mint 17.3
Intel i7-5960X
Nvidia 980ti
16GB RAM
Also, the game is actually heavier than the benchmark as I noted in my port report.
The performance difference is quite striking, and quite sad to see such a major difference in performance when testing it myself. Considering the power of my test rig, I do expect better.
I have no doubt Feral Interactive will push out future patches to improve things. They do support their titles very well, but it's still sad to see such a massive difference. I didn't even realize the difference was so large until I performed these tests. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
This is my first ever attempt, but I think it turned out reasonably well. The problem I've found is getting a smooth video of the benchmark on Linux, as all recording software made it slightly stutter (with no effect on actual FPS, tested against my previous results). This happens in some games, others are fine.
The second issue is the Tomb Raider benchmark is actually a little different each time with the animations that happen and their timings. Even in this video the timing of the animations at one point is different, but the rest is fine.
To note: This was on the exact same settings, double checked. High preset, motion blur off.
Tested on
Linux Mint 17.3
Intel i7-5960X
Nvidia 980ti
16GB RAM
Also, the game is actually heavier than the benchmark as I noted in my port report.
YouTube videos require cookies, you must accept their cookies to view. View cookie preferences.
Direct Link
Direct Link
The performance difference is quite striking, and quite sad to see such a major difference in performance when testing it myself. Considering the power of my test rig, I do expect better.
I have no doubt Feral Interactive will push out future patches to improve things. They do support their titles very well, but it's still sad to see such a massive difference. I didn't even realize the difference was so large until I performed these tests. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
0 Likes
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
With a GTX 970 and the 361.42 driver on Ultra I'm finding the FPS to be disappointing at times. Frequently sub 60 fps, down into the mid 30s for extended periods which really isn't what I'd expect for a three year old game with this GPU (nevermind the i7-4790K and 16GB Ram).
It's playable, and I've never really placed a great deal of emphasis on fps as long as it doesn't interfere with playing the game but ...
Last edited by GBee on 2 May 2016 at 7:19 am UTC
It's playable, and I've never really placed a great deal of emphasis on fps as long as it doesn't interfere with playing the game but ...
Last edited by GBee on 2 May 2016 at 7:19 am UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: omer666Well don't forget nVidia's part in this.
Lately I remember playing Total War Attila (not a Feral port by any mean) and getting awful performance with the drivers it was released for, then everybody was blaming Creative Assembly for not optimising their game engine. Quite recently I updated to 361 series and gave it a try, to my surprise the game was running quite smoothly.
To be fair, I think Feral always do their best, but don't forget, nVidia need to get their drivers updated on time for game releases. Also the game's been out on Windows for more than two years, and it is very often used for benchmarks in the Windows world. Drivers must have been continually optimised in two years time... Hence that big difference between the two OS.
As usual, we have to wait. Not so long ago, I've had been waiting for nVidia to correct a display glitch happening on GNOME for a year and a half.
I think this company really needs to get their things sorted out way more quickly...
I feel like I need to clarify one thing regarding my opinion - I know that Feral may not be the one to blame for performance. But Feral is the one who announces release, and Feral is the one who makes game available for us. And there was no information about known performance issues or they did not say that the game is released, but there is performance update that we should expect. Instead, we have a product, that seems to be final according to all the advertisements, but is not according to performance.
And I just expect those issues to be solved, and Feral needs to take part in fixing process. Even if nVidia is the one to blame.
If this is fixed and performance is comparable to Windows, then I will be happy to give them my money for the full price.
But sadly, currently I have an impression that we have a half product.
1 Likes, Who?
lucifertdark May 2, 2016
It would also help if Feral published some details about their porting rigs & what hardware they themselves tested the game on.
1 Likes, Who?
QuoteIf this is fixed and performance is comparable to Windows, then I will be happy to give them my money for the full price.
Only you're not paying the full price, the full price on launch was far higher. I know it might seem like a petty point, I know that Windows users can buy it at the same price as we are paying now but the majority bought the game when it was launched at more than twice the current asking price. Or to put it another way, the Linux launch price is less than half the Windows launch price which makes it a bargin even given the performance issues, which as I've already said do not really impact the playability of the game - at no point does it turn into a slideshow or lag noticeably.
If it wasn't possible to monitor the FPS in the game, would people even be raising the framerate as an issue? I doubt it.
2 Likes, Who?
cRaZy-bisCuiT May 2, 2016
Fun fact: nVidia drops support for the non-recent GPUs much faster than AMD does. AMD supports cards from the same gcn version. The nVidia 780ti which should only be a bit slower then the 780ti performs very badly in modern games (up to - 50% while it is supposed to be 10-20% slower at max).
I wonder if the game runs better with recent AMDGPU Pro drivers if you compare Windows vs Linux.
I wonder if the game runs better with recent AMDGPU Pro drivers if you compare Windows vs Linux.
0 Likes
I say give Feral a break here - it could be something as small as the Steam overlay affecting the results :D
Linux has IMHO never been about high-end hardware so will be nice to see a comparison with lower-end GPU's -besides anything over 80fps most screens are limited by their refresh rate and wont even render those "frames" - worse they actually cause texture tearing and other irritations...
Last edited by Xelancer on 2 May 2016 at 9:20 am UTC
Linux has IMHO never been about high-end hardware so will be nice to see a comparison with lower-end GPU's -besides anything over 80fps most screens are limited by their refresh rate and wont even render those "frames" - worse they actually cause texture tearing and other irritations...
Last edited by Xelancer on 2 May 2016 at 9:20 am UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: XelancerOn the Linux version there is a flock of birds that fly past - YET those same birds don't seem to appear on the Windoze version?? Is there a decal limit or something on the Win10 version, could something like that explain the discrepancy in the results? I know some drivers even hard-limit to polygon counts and reduce polygons considered outside of visible range?Even dedicated benchmarks are rarely identical to the last details. Run the benchmark enough times and you'll notice a bunch of differences between runs (on the same system).
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: dubigrasuEven dedicated benchmarks are rarely identical to the last details. Run the benchmark enough times and you'll notice a bunch of differences between runs (on the same system).Yes you are right; and when you are talking two distinct technologies (like DX game converted to OpenGL) I suppose those discrepancies will only grow. Sure makes a strong case for Vulkan going forward...
0 Likes
Ultimate quality preset at 1920x1200 on a GTX Titan X with driver v364.19.
Benchmark Statistics:
* Min FPS: 49.2
* Max FPS: 85.1
* Average FPS: 68.0
Benchmark Statistics:
* Min FPS: 49.2
* Max FPS: 85.1
* Average FPS: 68.0
0 Likes
See more from me