FreeBSD vs Windows: OpenGL Performance

[MrX]

right now in BeOS world
Rudolf Cornelissen is making a 3d driver and he sais :

Code: [Select]


BTW: I now compared timedemo1 speeds in Linux (nVidia closed source
driver) and BeOS. The Linux driver is 5 times faster than mine (I get
400fps for Q2 in for instance 800x600x32 mode on GF4Ti, MX about 250fps
If I remember correctly)

As I know for sure I am using the HW command available to the max it
becomes clear that they use other commands, or have extra features in
the card that enourmously speeds up the command I use. You'd better
prepare that we will not get those speeds on BeOS for nvidia.

I will publish the measurements and these thoughts on my weblog soon
BTW. It seems like a good idea to at some point do a 3D driver for a
'opensource hardware' 3D card. Even if these cards perform (much) worse
than nvidia's cards in windows, having full docs on such a card would
effectively make it much faster than a nvidia card in BeOs....


so that is interesting. see my website here:
http://beq2.beworld.info/hardware_accel_on_beos.html

[toadlife]

You are jumping the gun a bit muzzy. My benchmark page is FAR from complete, and I never said that FreeBSD is better than Windows for 3d performance. As I said, I plan on benchmarking more games, and I also plan on doing more Quake benchmarks with various AA/AF settings turned on.

As for the speculation about refreshrate limiting framerates in FreeBSD, they were not. I immediately suspected this myself, and made sure the vertical sync was turned off. Also, when I changed the lighting settings from "Lightmap" to "Vertex", the framerate in FreeBSD jumped to 96fps at 640x480. My monitor runs at 65-85mhz depending on the resolution.

[toadlife]

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.

I think you are right. FreeBSD's linux ABI support is extremely efficient, but I suspect there are certain features of the linux kernel that either can't or don't get emulated properly. I seem to remember similar behavior in America's Army when running it in FreeBSD - changing to lower resolutions would not help framerates very much. I would have to go back and verify that though.

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

There are none that fit that criteria.

[choasforages]

sigh...any shit running through any sort of layer and not on the hardware is going to be slower........

not to mention freebsd is more of a server operating system then a desktop one. linux on the other hand.....ive run quake 3 on both, its more stable and faster under linux....then agian, any layers that quake 3 has to go through under linux(like X11 and the kernel) probably has had gcc3 grind on the opimization flags for days whereas windows must run on almost any shit86 boxen. not to mention im betting dev on the linux/freebsd nvidia drivers as well as ati drivers is treated like a second class citizen.

[choasforages]

ahhhhhh, i know of a native opengl app...its anciet but its native to both platforms...glquake and quake2.

[toadlife]

I've posted some more benchmarks of Quake III. I am going to try and do a comparison of America's Army. I think I can benchmark it by  just loading the maps and viewing the fps. This won't be as good as doing a timedemo, but it's one of the only *modern* games available on both Windows and linux.

[Kintaro]

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

You probably need to get drivers for your video card, I don't even play games and I know this. But it is a rough estimation that I am over fifty thousand times more intelligent than you. It amazes me how you manage to live in something that small.

[Kintaro]

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?

 Why don't we all get our cameras and post our dongs.

[toadlife]

Interesting. FreeBSD runs America's army faster than Windows - at *ALL* resolutions. I'll post the benchmarks soon.

[Kintaro]

I think you are right. FreeBSD's linux ABI support is extremely efficient, but I suspect there are certain features of the linux kernel that either can't or don't get emulated properly. I seem to remember similar behavior in America's Army when running it in FreeBSD - changing to lower resolutions would not help framerates very much. I would have to go back and verify that though.



There are none that fit that criteria.

There is an interesting fact that I will point out. The time I will point it out is now. The Linux Kernel has a major proformance option called "premptive kernel". I have no idea exactly what this means however I am well aware of its physical effects on the system. Basically: without it Linux runs as slow as Steve Blammer's metabolism. I have no clue in the entire wet Universe if FreeBSD does whatever this (preemptive kernel) does. Maybe look into that, my dear toadlife.

[toadlife]

There is an interesting fact that I will point out. The time I will point it out is now. The Linux Kernel has a major proformance option called "premptive kernel". I have no idea exactly what this means however I am well aware of its physical effects on the system. Basically: without it Linux runs as slow as Steve Blammer's metabolism. I have no clue in the entire wet Universe if FreeBSD does whatever this (preemptive kernel) does. Maybe look into that, my dear toadlife.

I have no idea if what you describe is supported in FreeBSD.

Here is a quote from the FreeBSD handbook on linux compatibility..

In a nutshell, the compatibility allows FreeBSD users to run about 90% of all Linux applications without modification. This includes applications such as Star Office, the Linux             version of Netscape, Adobe Acrobat, RealPlayer 5 and 7, VMWare, Oracle, WordPerfect, Doom, Quake, and more. It is also reported that in some situations, Linux binaries perform better on FreeBSD than they do under Linux. There are, however, some Linux-specific operating system features that are not supported under FreeBSD. Linux binaries will not work on FreeBSD if they overly use the Linux /proc filesystem (which is different from FreeBSD's /proc filesystem), or i386-specific calls, such as enabling virtual 8086 mode.

 

               

Unlike withg Quake III, in FreeBSD the framerates in America's Army increased at the resolution went down all the way down to 640x480, and FreeBSD consitently outperformed Windows in almost every map. There were a few exceptions where Windows beat FreeBSD.

I don't have time to post the becnhmarks right now. I'm leaving for the coast for fourth of july tommorow. I might post them in tne next few days though, if I can ssh into my box.

[toadlife]

America's Army benchmarks are up.

Quite suprising they were.


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

[Kintaro]

You do realise I am not on your local network and therfore that link is very useless?

I hope so. God I hope so.

[toadlife]

You do realise I am not on your local network and therfore that link is very useless?

I hope so. God I hope so.

I certainly hope you are not on my local network.

I did a copy/paste job without thinking..

link fixed.

[adiment]

Of coarse BSD will have better frames... SP2 has many un-needed services running. This is common sense and you did not need to bench.

try tweaking and modifying xp until it uses the same amount of ram as BSD then bench.  It's like comparing a race between 2 cars, but one car has a bunch of shit that weighs it down inside of it.

if you were going to use stock settings, there was no point of benching, FreeBSD would win obviusly(sp).