FreeBSD vs Windows: OpenGL Performance

[toadlife]

http://toadlife.kicks-ass.net/bsdvswindows/

I'm trying to compare 3D performance of FreeBSD to Windows. So far I've done a set of Quake III benchmarks that show some interesting results. I plan on tossing my spare 40GB ahrd drive into my machine and installing some flavor of linux to see how it does too.

I would also have some doom III benchmarks too, but you can't do benchmarks with the demo version. I hate the game, so I'm not going to buy it just to benchmark it.

Unreal Tournament 2004 also supports benchmarking, but like Doom III, you have to have the full version. I hate UT2004 too, so I'm not going to buy it either.

I think I'm going to have to bust out my Bittorrent to help me get these benchmarks done.

Anyone know of any other 3d games that run on Linux/Windows, and can be benchmarked?

[Lead Head]

well i don't know any games that can run on both of them but i know lots of win games, but UT2004 is Direct 3D not OpenGL, my copy of UT2004 doesn't even support OpenGL , i have to chosse between Software and D3D rendering

[Siplus]

Try Neverwinter Nights..

I like that game (still!)

[toadlife]

but UT2004 is Direct 3D not OpenGL, my copy of UT2004 doesn't even support OpenGL , i have to chosse between Software and D3D rendering

The linux version of UT 2004 doesn't support OpenGL?

[muzzy]

Waitamoment. So, windows beats freebsd hands down, except at maximum resolution. And this is after windows version has been given disadvantage by disabling all GL extensions that would've otherwise been there.

So, what the heck are you benchmarking? How can you say freebsd redeems itself at the end? What if you ordered those framerates in inverse order, you'd see that windows framerates keep steadily improving while freebsd's framerates don't give a fuck?

Also, are you sure that freebsd's rates aren't capped to screen refresh rate or something? That would explain the around-75 values. Why did you disable GL extensions in windows? Why not just add extra tests with them on? Would it be unfair to compare the systems as they actually perform under real world situation?

Sounds like windows is constantly winning even in your biased comparison, and you're calling this "interesting"? Honestly, it was to be expected.

[noob]

maybe the bsd was limited by drivers or summin. windows one shud be fsater, with all the extra secret api's in windows, but really, 75fps is quite acceptable.

[WMD]

The linux version of UT 2004 doesn't support OpenGL?

Yes, it does.  The Windows version does not.  That's what he's looking at.

[WMD]

Muzzy - he disabled GL extensions in both versions.  Read the top paragraph more carefully.

[bedouin]

There's something not right with those results.  The FPS are almost identical in BSD at nearly every resolution; usually that suggests there's some kind of processing bottleneck.  I'm suspecting the Linux emulation is to blame.  

If you want to do this fairly you need to find two OpenGL apps that run natively in both operating systems.

[WMD]

FreeBSD has no Linux "emulation" - it's translation, much like VMware.  I'm going with muzzy's suggestion of screen refresh issues.

[muzzy]

Muzzy - he disabled GL extensions in both versions.  Read the top paragraph more carefully.

That's my point exactly. "Because it didn't work in freebsd, it was only fair to turn it off in windows". WTF? "Because performance in freebsd sucked, it was only fair to turn off all performance improving features in windows as well". Is this what it's saying? WHAT THE HECK IS BEING BENCHMARKED IN HERE, REALLY? Can you answer that? What real world thing does this benchmark measure? If it tests the driver implementations, why does one have to be handicapped when other one fails? Does this benchmark efficiency of library calls? The compiler that was used to compile the software for the specific platform? Anything at all?

To me, this "benchmark" makes no sense whatsoever, and the results aren't very interesting. It only displays what we all knew: windows is superior for this stuff, even if you have to artificially bring it down to same playing field with "competing" operating systems.

[WMD]

That's my point exactly. "Because it didn't work in freebsd, it was only fair to turn it off in windows". WTF? "Because performance in freebsd sucked, it was only fair to turn off all performance improving features in windows as well".

The GL extensions in BSD simply didn't work.  They weren't slow.  If something doesn't work, what's the purpose of using it in a benchmark?  Are you saying that leaving them turned on in Windows would make this *more* fair somehow?

This benchmark is simply BSD vs. Windows in Quake 3, but he had to turn something off to make it work properly.  Why is that such a mystery?  Either way, the bigger problem is the sameness in the BSD framerates across all resolutions.  Something else is wrong, and we still don't know who wins this battle, GL extensions or not.

[muzzy]

So, we want to get some practical results about game performance on two different systems, and because performance features don't work on one platform, they have to be turned off on others to make comparison fair?

Do I have to bend an explanation from an iron wire so you'll get it, too? Heck, let's make opengl comparison ... I'll write software implementation, but I'll only implement ONE FUNCTION! Thus, we'll only benchmark that. As a result, we'll notice that my opengl implementation beats every other implementation in performance! Woo Yay! How about that? Flawed benchmark? So, how much do I have to implement before it stops being flawed? Oh, just basic functionality but anything that'd actually make a difference won't be used?

I can't see what your "fair" benchmark will tell. What do the values mean? Really, tell me, what significance do those numbers have? Of what practical or even theoretical use are they to anyone or anything?

Are we going to compare system bogomips next?

[WMD]

So, we want to get some practical results about game performance on two different systems, and because performance features don't work on one platform, they have to be turned off on others to make comparison fair?

Yeah, essentially.  It's not FreeBSD's fault that the GL extensions don't work - they don't make them.  Quake 3 even uses the Linux OpenGL AFAIK, so that also hurts.  If there was a real FreeBSD version of Quake 3, I'd think GL extensions would work there.  But there isn't, so they won't.

Are we going to compare system bogomips next?

Sure, I have 5622.98.  What's yours? :p

[mobrien_12]

Maybe Heavy Gear 2?

And you can get it cheap at ebay.