Quoting: PublicNuisanceWhile it's lower on the Linux side it is still respectable framerates on the Nvidia side. Hopefully AMD can get some more money to spend on their driver teams.

Unlike many I understand why they are behind on the driver side of things. AMD had a profit in 2014 of $51 million while Nvidia had a profit of $147 million in just the fourth quarter of last year. When you make more than 7 or 8 times the money of the competition it is easier to outspend them in R&D. I'm not taking sides, just pointing out a fact.

I prefer AMD's more open type of innovations such as tressFX so I will continue to choose them when they can deliver a competitive product. I wouldn't take a Fury X over a GTX 980 Ti, i'm not blind, but I would take a 390X over a GTX 980 and a 390 over a GTX 970.

Those profit figures are interesting, given that AMD now has a monopoly over console GPUs and consoles are doing pretty well. How come nVidia makes so much more profit?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: nattydread

Quoting: TheBoss

Quoting: nattydreadis it a native build or a port?

It was ported by Feral Interactive, and it is native. A port doesn't make something not native.

well what I mean perhaps is: does it use a wrapper to DirectX or does it directly use OpenGL? There must be some reason it doesn't perform as well on SteamOS.

Whether it's a wrapper or directly on OpenGL doesn't mean much. Porting it to OpenGL is something, and optimizing it for OpenGL is something else. Companies won't spend time optimizing the game unless there is a reason for that, and when it comes to this game there isn't much benefit for end users, since the game is already running above 60fps on current Steam Machines. Benchmarks have shown that when the game is optimized for Linux they run at similar performance to Windows. An example is L4D2.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MaxPower

Quoting: sarmadWait a second. GTX 960 or GTX 960m? The difference between the two is day and night. Can anyone confirm it really is the desktop GPU inside that tiny box?

Could be a gtx 970m

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/3rcpd2/zotac_nen_steam_machine/cwmz5pw

Either way it will be awesome. I think this is going to be my next console.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Wait a second. GTX 960 or GTX 960m? The difference between the two is day and night. Can anyone confirm it really is the desktop GPU inside that tiny box?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: peterp771Works beautifully. I'm using a GTX 650 Ti and I'm averaging around 60-70 FPS. Thanks Feral!

At what details/resolution are you running it?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MaxPower

Quoting: sarmadThe GTX 560 Ti is just a little bit slower than the Alienware Steam Machine, that means the game will also perform poorly on the Steam Machine. It's however still good enough for a port. I don't expect any good ports until Vulcan becomes the norm.

I thought the Alienware Steam Machine was equivalent to the 750ti. ?

Yes it is, and the 750ti is not much different from the 560 ti in terms of processing power. The 560 is around 1263 gflops compared to 1306 gflops for the 750. In terms of fill rate the 560 is actually faster than the 750! So overall it looks like people will be running this game on low settings at sub 1080p on the Steam Machine. I still question Alienware's choice for the GPU in their Steam Machine, and every port that comes out just adds additional evidence that Alienware's choice is wrong.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The GTX 560 Ti is just a little bit slower than the Alienware Steam Machine, that means the game will also perform poorly on the Steam Machine. It's however still good enough for a port. I don't expect any good ports until Vulcan becomes the norm.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

A benchmark from Phoronix shows the same, only CS:GO saw improvement:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-catalyst-159&num=1

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ProfessorKaos64

Quoting: michawell, the graphics actually look worse than most last gen shooters atm. So not really a great advertisement for UE4.. still looking forward to newer versions. =)

I don't get that impression at all. Are you running this on a Commodore 64? You may need to update your drivers.

What are you talking about? What drivers? Look at the video posted by Liam, then Google Call of Duty PS3 and compare.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

You complain about wrappers, but what do you know about the code running on top of this wrapper? An optimized game running on an optimized wrapper might in the end run faster than a poorly optimized native game, will you still prefer the native one in this case? As a user I care about two things only: performance and stability. The technologies used by the team is their own business. When it comes to older games that will run well on today's machines even with the overhead of a wrapper, I am ok with droping my frame rate from 100 to 60 if it means lower prices or more ported games.

View this comment - View article - View full comments