OpenGL performance under Linux!

Hello folks!

Well i was wondering if anyone has done some benchmark about OpenGL implementation under Linux (how it compares to other OS with the same h/w).

With my GeForce, I get 10fps faster in linux than windows.

/skw|d

Hi Intruder,

Originally posted by Intruder:
[b]Hello folks!

Well i was wondering if anyone has done some benchmark about OpenGL implementation under Linux (how it compares to other OS with the same h/w).[/b]

At the current time it seem to be very hardware dependant. Here is what I know/read:

  1. 3dfx-cards seem to run quite well, I think within +/- 15%.
  2. Matrox and ATI cards are relatively slow, since the DRI-drivers for XFree4.0 are not yet completed. I think in XFree3.3 they only get about 50% of the Windows performance if you get them running at all…
  3. Cards with NVidia chipsets using XFree4.0 and the NVidia drivers perform very well. They should be always within +/- 10% compared to Windows.

My info come from a hardware review site on the web (can’t remember which one), personal experience (I use a tnt2) and a german computer magazine (c’t).

Hope this helps…

bxe Miq

Originally posted by skw|d:
[b]With my GeForce, I get 10fps faster in linux than windows.

/skw|d[/b]

Yikes you manage to get 10fps under Linux? Ill be quite interested in which apps you manage to do that ;-). So far all the benchmark i saw on the net show the Linux to be about ±10% slower than Windows counterpart!

Btw what GeForce do you have?

Originally posted by miq:
[b]Hi Intruder,

At the current time it seem to be very hardware dependant. Here is what I know/read:

  1. 3dfx-cards seem to run quite well, I think within +/- 15%.
  2. Matrox and ATI cards are relatively slow, since the DRI-drivers for XFree4.0 are not yet completed. I think in XFree3.3 they only get about 50% of the Windows performance if you get them running at all…
  3. Cards with NVidia chipsets using XFree4.0 and the NVidia drivers perform very well. They should be always within +/- 10% compared to Windows.

My info come from a hardware review site on the web (can’t remember which one), personal experience (I use a tnt2) and a german computer magazine (c’t).

Hope this helps…

bxe Miq[/b]

Currently i own a 3dfx V3 and it seem to perform at about the same speed, even in some test i am doing in Gizmo3d i manage to get faster FPS under Linux ;-). But with the latest 3dfx cards (V5 series) it perform pretty badly 8-( (still only support 1 chips out of 2)

As for Matrox they seem to work pretty well, but then again the card itself are quite slow compare to the rest of the industry. ATI Radeon driver are being develop by DRI folks at PI, i hope they can release it soon!

Yup it seem it is still NVidia being the leader again!

First of all, 90% of the speed difference will be in the driver because hardware is hardware regardless of the OS. Linux should be a little faster than windows if the drivers were equal because Linux is a better OS. Linux has suffered from poor performance because the hardware vendors developed linux drivers in their spare time basicly. Recent drivers from nVidia with X4.0.1 have given me 10fps faster in Quake3 (which is what I use to benchmark.) BTW, I have a GeForce DDR.

If you had poor linux performance with 3Dfx, you are not alone. Many vendors have made their Linux drivers second best to their Windows drivers. This is not the fault of the OS though. 3Dfx will be dropping Glide for OpenGL and will give better Linux support. I develop on nVidia hardware now, but I am a 3Dfx fan from the early days and in the future I am sure that I will have both to test code on.

/skw|d

The one helping me with Linux has a PII333, and a GeForce 2 GTS 32MB. He runs Q3A with full detail in 1600x1200 with 16Bit colors, and he has from 20 to 60 fps. I have a PIII450, GeForce 2 GTS and 378MB RAM, so I am looking forward to getting linux to run OpenGL perfectly. We both use Slackware 7.1

This topic was automatically closed 183 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.