On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Alexander Shopov wrote: >> Kernel modules are not inherently faster. the reason directx (and >> openGL) seem so fast on windows is because the manufacturers and MS >> tweak the drivers for every last bit of performance. Plus they are >> able to utilize interfaces that are not accessable in xfree86 due to IP >> concerns. Some xfree86 drivers actually are faster or support more >> features than their windows counterparts. >> >Hi Alex, >How can we prove this with real life data? >I do realize XFree86 is VERY fast in some situations - for example I >have seen Quake 3 running faster on GNU/Linux than on Windows - on the >same hardware.
I'm not quite convinced that that is an objective comparison however. Was Quake 3 running in both operating systems with the exact same 3D settings? Windows drivers support the full hardware featureset, and games are more likely IMHO to use the full hardware set of features in Windows. The XFree86 open source drivers support only a limited set of the functionality available in Windows. If you disable all hardware features in Windows which are not available under Linux, and configure everything else to be as close as possible for an accurate apples to apples comparison does Linux perform better? My experience is that while Linux DRI support is decent for most users, it doesn't outperform Windows. One needs to also make sure the same AGP mode is being used, etc. and that MTRR is functional... Of course I'm not discounting your claims, just a bit skeptical as to how the exact tests were ran, and how it was instrumented, or if it was just a placebo'ish "it seems faster" type of thing, etc... >What can we really do to prove to infidels that XFree86 works great? >Logic most of the times fails, explanation like usage of IPC, latency >tests etc. also fails, people just scream "Kernel graphics g0000d, X >b4444d" and it is demos like this that help me shut them up. >What can we do? Quite frankly... random uninformed people making claims that X is slow, without any shred of a clue or properly deduced scientifically measured and reproduceable instrumented data, will always be out there. We can't stop people from spreading unfounded rumours nor from making random guesses as to why they or someone they know may be experiencing slowdowns in some application or another. X itself isn't slow by any stretch of the imagination, and there have been studies done that show this precicely. I don't think trying to "prove" anything to people who will believe whatever they want to believe helps us any at all personally... The best thing any of us can do, is continue to properly and scientifically analyze the X server, it's video drivers, and other related technologies, profile them, optimize them, etc. Right now, the biggest hit on the desktop is probably unaccelerated RENDER operations. That's what most users likely see as "desktop slowdowns" currently. Over time, those things will improve as people write support. The most important thing, when comparing Linux/X/XFree86 to Windows performancewise however, is that apples to apples comparisons are being made, and to understand exactly what component and/or level of the puzzle any problems that are found reside in. In the case of RENDER for example, that isn't an X11 performance problem, it is an XFree86 video driver limitation currently. Nothing that can't be overcome in the future. For video games and 3D however (to get back on specific topic), proprietary drivers that implement all of the hardware's special do-dads are very likely to always outperform the OSS drivers, simply because more resources are spent on the proprietary drivers, and more engineers with more deeper knowledge of the hardware are working on them. Take care, TTYL -- Mike A. Harris _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
