Confused on Steam Play and Proton? Be sure to check out our guide.
We do often include affiliate links to earn us some pennies. See more here.

OpenGL vs Vulkan in Mad Max, re-tested

By -
Since Feral Interactive have fixed up the OpenGL renderer in the Mad Max [Steam] Beta, here are some fresh OpenGL vs Vulkan tests.

I already cleared up the issue before and included some manual testing, see here.

These new tests are re-done using their benchmark feature, which is unique to the Linux version. This should now give a much more accurate look at how OpenGL fares against Vulkan in some heavy areas of the game.

Also, Feral have now made public how they have worked around a Linux performance issue. You might remember my post about tuning your CPU performance governor for Vulkan games, well this is partly where that came from (as well as Serious Sam). Essentially, to prevent the CPU performance being reduced due to less CPU use with Vulkan, Feral are spinning their rendering thread while waiting for the GPU (see here).

Benchmarks
OpenGL Vulkan Mad Max - Camp - Hollow Point (redone)Antergos Linux, 1080p, i7 5960x, 980ti NormalHighVery High Vulkan 241OpenGL 225Vulkan 171OpenGL 148Vulkan 136OpenGL 121 241225171148136121 04998147196245 Average FPS

Here we have a performance difference of between (approx) +6% to +15% when using Vulkan.

OpenGL Vulkan Mad Max - Stronghold – Tyrant’s Lash (redone)Antergos Linux, 1080p, i7 5960x, 980ti NormalHighVery High OpenGL 96Vulkan 77Vulkan 70OpenGL 48Vulkan 60OpenGL 43 967770486043 020406080100 Average FPS

Here we have a performance difference of between (approx) -20% to +45% when using Vulkan. Looks like there's an odd issue with Vulkan performance there, but I'm not the only one who has seen Vulkan sometimes do a little worse.

OpenGL Vulkan Cutscene - Hope, Glory, and Dog is Dead (redone)Antergos Linux, 1080p, i7 5960x, 980ti NormalHighVery High Vulkan 253OpenGL 228Vulkan 161OpenGL 149Vulkan 135OpenGL 131 253228161149135131 051102153204255 Average FPS

Here we have a performance difference of between (approx) +3% to +11% when using Vulkan.

OpenGL Vulkan Cutscene - Landmover (redone)Antergos Linux, 1080p, i7 5960x, 980ti NormalHighVery High Vulkan 277OpenGL 260Vulkan 180OpenGL 170Vulkan 155OpenGL 153 277260180170155153 056112168224280 Average FPS

Here we have a performance difference of between (approx) +1% to +6% when using Vulkan.

Some thoughts: A fair amount of their time during the Beta so far has likely been spent fixing up the regressed OpenGL side and when taking into consideration Vulkan is considered "Beta", it's likely Feral has optimizations left to do with Vulkan.

You might not think much of a 5% increase, but for people on lower-end hardware a 5% increase can mean a world of difference. I've seen a few people on GOL and Reddit say Vulkan has made it go from sluggish to smooth, which is a clear win.

We also have to consider that the OpenGL renderer in the Mad Max beta has also seen some optimizations since the original release. The original release doesn't have the benchmark mode, so we can't test that in the same way along side the beta.

Then there's also the drivers, Vulkan drivers are new and evolving and likely have their own sets of issues to be fixed. Some of which could affect performance. Sure Vulkan is supposed to have smaller drivers, but with so few Vulkan games out no driver has truly been tested.

Be sure to share your latest results in the comments, I'm keen to see what it's like on your systems too.

Finally, Feral are keen for feedback, email them direct here: [email protected] Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Tags: Benchmark, OpenGL, Vulkan | Apps: Mad Max
16 Likes
About the author -
author picture
I am the owner of GamingOnLinux. After discovering Linux back in the days of Mandrake in 2003, I constantly checked on the progress of Linux until Ubuntu appeared on the scene and it helped me to really love it. You can reach me easily by emailing GamingOnLinux directly. You can also follow my personal adventures on Bluesky.
See more from me
The comments on this article are closed.
All posts need to follow our rules. For users logged in: please hit the Report Flag icon on any post that breaks the rules or contains illegal / harmful content. Guest readers can email us for any issues.
46 comments
Page: 1/3»
  Go to:

rafebelmont Apr 4, 2017
Really good piece of work. I saw some guys suggesting that Feral had put the regression on purpose. Personally I think that some people are just too quick in making judgments and accusations, which I don't think it is fine at all.
Liam Dawe Apr 4, 2017
EDIT: also please fix the graphs and keep the order consistent, my ocd is killing me :(
Well, the order is correct for the intended purposes, showing which is the winner in each section. The colours are always the same.
FastOS Apr 4, 2017
In my i7 4790k + gtx 780 I did not have very significant difference. Only in some moments I had little framedrop with vulkan compared to opengl. I show in the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5AvPP0o_c8
Liam Dawe Apr 4, 2017
In my i7 4790k + gtx 780 I did not have very significant difference. Only in some moments I had little framedrop with vulkan compared to opengl. I show in the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5AvPP0o_c8
Well for one thing, that will be compared the regressed OpenGL. That's the point of this article, the initial Beta had a regressed OpenGL renderer.
Ehvis Apr 4, 2017
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
I my experience, the improvement is much better in bad areas. In line with the Tyrant's Lash benchmark. So the improvement is really noticeable where it counts.
elmapul Apr 4, 2017
its great that they have made this improvment so the game is playable for computers that werent...
but deus ex is the game who need serious improvments, i was watching linux game cast and even with an nvidia980 they didnt get an good frame rate if my memory dont fail me...

this improvment is not enough to make the performance better than windows, so no one will install linux just to play an game that he/she cant play on windows due to weak hardware.

and feral could have spent this time porting other games, sure, it cost more, but they will not make many extra sales from improving the performance on this one, porting others they will...
Liam Dawe Apr 4, 2017
this improvment is not enough to make the performance better than windows, so no one will install linux just to play an game that he/she cant play on windows due to weak hardware.
It's hard to hit Windows levels with games that were never designed with Linux or anything but DirectX in mind.

and feral could have spent this time porting other games, sure, it cost more, but they will not make many extra sales from improving the performance on this one, porting others they will...
Any work they do on their Vulkan rendering will get it ready for future ports I'm sure.
edddeduck_feral Apr 4, 2017
I my experience, the improvement is much better in bad areas. In line with the Tyrant's Lash benchmark. So the improvement is really noticeable where it counts.

Yes this is what we'd expect the largest boosts come when previously the GPU was starved due to GL driver overhead using all the CPU time.

Vulkan has a much lower overhead which means in these high stress areas you can now utilise much more (usually 100%) of your GPU. The less powerful the CPU and the more powerful the GPU the greater the effect Vulkan can have.

This means you'll be a bit faster in most areas but the areas that really dipped down due to drivers should now only drop a small amount giving you a much nicer experience.

That said this is still a beta (and so are some of the drivers) so expect a few rough edges. That's why we released the beta and asked for feedback.

Thanks to everyone who's emailed in so far!


Last edited by edddeduck_feral on 4 April 2017 at 10:01 pm UTC
Luke_Nukem Apr 4, 2017
This is absolutely a noticeable improvement on my rig - i3-6100, GTX950.

The difference is I can max out the graphical settings, including using antialiasing, and get a smooth game at 30fps+.
With OGL I had to run without antialiasing, and with a few settings at either medium or high (vs everything at ultra).
dubigrasu Apr 4, 2017
Hm, the old OpenGL version is still faster than the new one, and in some places faster than Vulkan.
Linuxwarper Apr 4, 2017
Thanks for this! I can't wait to see the performance difference when Vulkan implementation for the game has matured significantly.


Last edited by Linuxwarper on 4 April 2017 at 11:35 pm UTC
melkemind Apr 5, 2017
View PC info
  • Supporter
I get frame drops into the 50s and 40s while driving. Is it because my CPU is too slow? I have an i5 3350P, with an Nvidia GTX 970.

The max fps is better with vulkan, but the minimum seems to be the same, which makes the experience less smooth, even with settings turned all the way down. Is there any way to get a consistent 60 fps?
Mountain Man Apr 5, 2017
Oh well, I guess the doubling and tripling in performance was too good to be true. Still, some improvement is better than no improvement. I'm just looking forward to the day when developers start using Vulkan from beginning to end so that we don't see Linux gaming performance lagging significantly behind Windows.
fagnerln Apr 5, 2017
I ran the benchmark and strangely OGL is near Vulkan in averange FPS. But "in real life", things are different, in OGL, FPS drops to below 20fps, my cpu struggles as hell even on lowest settings. To be fair, the game was unplayable.

Now the game runs at 40~60fps on high settings. You can't measure a CPU overhead with an i7.

I hope that Feral upgrade their older games too (TR runs badly even on lowest)

Using fx6300 + 750ti
psycho_driver Apr 5, 2017
Any work they do on their Vulkan rendering will get it ready for future ports I'm sure.

I really hope this work is back-ported to Shadow of Mordor since it uses roughly the same engine.
edddeduck_feral Apr 5, 2017
I really hope this work is back-ported to Shadow of Mordor since it uses roughly the same engine.

The engines are completely unrelated custom engines written by two seperate developers. They are not as related as XCOM and XCOM 2 for example.


Last edited by edddeduck_feral on 5 April 2017 at 5:57 am UTC
Eike Apr 5, 2017
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
The engines are completely unrelated custom engines written by two seperate developers. They are not as related as XCOM and XCOM 2 for example.

Vulkan for XCOM, XCOM 2 and XCOM 3 on Linux confirmed! Yay!
Geppeto35 Apr 5, 2017
The engines are completely unrelated custom engines written by two seperate developers. They are not as related as XCOM and XCOM 2 for example.

Vulkan for XCOM, XCOM 2 and XCOM 3 on Linux confirmed! Yay!

XDDD
Cmdr_Iras Apr 5, 2017
It would be nice to see the same benchmarks for a system with a less powerful CPU. No offence to Liam here the benchmarks are nice to see but his CPU is a beefy one and thus was probably less affected by the CPU bound issue when using OpenGL than someone using an i5 say, I think that could show even better gains as the benefit will release the GPU more from bottlenecks.
jsa1983 Apr 5, 2017
You can't measure a CPU overhead with an i7.

That's the point. The CPUs used in the testing seem quite beefy. I myself have noticed frame rate improvement and much more smoothness with a AMD FX 8370 (low single core performance). I haven't tested the fixed OpenGL of the beta, but will do once I get some free time.
While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:

Reward Tiers: Patreon. Plain Donations: PayPal.

This ensures all of our main content remains totally free for everyone! Patreon supporters can also remove all adverts and sponsors! Supporting us helps bring good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
The comments on this article are closed.