Thursday, August 2nd 2012

L4D2 Runs Faster on Linux than Windows

Valve's hit online multiplayer game, Left 4 Dead 2, which was recently ported to Ubuntu along with the Steam client, is found to play faster on the platform than even Windows. The game generates higher frame-rates on Ubuntu with the new OpenGL renderer for Source engine than the Direct3D renderer it uses on Windows.

The disclosure comes as part of Valve's ongoing efforts to optimize the Source engine to the Linux platform, following which, it plans to port more of its game franchises, such as Half Life, Counter Strike, Team Fortress, and Portal. The games will be available on Ubuntu with SteamPlay, allowing users who already own a license for the Windows or Mac OS X versions to simply download and play the game on Ubuntu, without any purchases.Source: Phoronix
Add your own comment

107 Comments on L4D2 Runs Faster on Linux than Windows

#1
Scatler
"Using a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 graphics card with an Intel Core i7 3930K processor" uh why would you use high end hardware to test a game that is very light on the hardware? :<
Posted on Reply
#2
Liquid Cool
I don't see the surprise here.

:roll:

LC
Posted on Reply
#3
HumanSmoke
Using a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 graphics card with an Intel Core i7 3930K processor, Windows 7 SP1 was running Left 4 Dead 2 with the Direct3D renderer at 270 FPS while under Linux with OpenGL they are now at 315 FPS! Using the OpenGL renderer on Windows isn't also quite as good with its average frame-rate at around 303 FPS.


Could come in handy if I get a 315Hz screen- should be smooth as silk.

/would care more if it was a title less than 2.5 years old.
Posted on Reply
#5
reverze
mac os version also uses opengl right? would be nice to see a comparisson on that.
Posted on Reply
#6
BazookaJoe
It's been a long known "thing" that the new windows versions are measurably slower than even previous windows'es.

Its sad really that My machine scores nearly 2000 points extra on 3Dmark06 in a WinXP boot than it does in Win7.

Newer versions of windows don't really give a shit if your perfectly standard sound card works or not anymore or where your GPU juice goes - its FAAR FAR FAR more important that your title bar is transparent so you can barely tell one window from the other, that your mouse has shadows, and that EVERYTHING slides around and wooshes in and out like you just bounced a bag of spoiled weed

But that's the world we live in, Fluff & Front End are way more important than form and function anymore, It needs to sparkle and twinkle and whirrrrrl and whizz to hold the 20 second attention span of the new ADD Justin Beiber generation, just look at that cross-eyed inbred hill-billy 8 year old child's interface "Metro" for gods sake. ITS A COMPUTER NOT A FUNKING CELL PHONE!

Its as tho they just don't want us using computers at all anymore.

But that's off topic, so let's just not go there, I guess WELL DONE to Valve - I can see Linux definitely becoming a more and more viable OS for me as I am one of those lost forgotten cave people who actually USE A COMPUTER AND RUN PROGRAMS AND WORK WITH FILES, and that is simply not what the future of Windows is about anymore apparently.

The ONLY thing that has really kept me away from Linux is its overall terrible gaming support track record, but this article just proves what a rapidly evolving landscape that is, and clearly I need to start paying closer attention.
Posted on Reply
#7
DannibusX
This is promising, indeed.

by: HumanSmoke
/would care more if it was a title less than 2.5 years old.
And it's one of their most popular games. No worries, more will follow.

Edit:

Also. Can't wait for the penguin hat.
Posted on Reply
#8
Completely Bonkers
by: BazookaJoe
Its as tho they just don't want us using computers at all anymore.
They don't want consumers in control anymore. Walled garden is the new business model. You can create a virtual wall by keeping the user stupid... or unempowered.
Posted on Reply
#9
erocker
I wonder how an openGL version of L4D2 would work on a Windows machine?
Posted on Reply
#10
NC37
by: reverze
mac os version also uses opengl right? would be nice to see a comparisson on that.
OSX OpenGL is always behind in performance. You can thank Jobs for insisting on only updating it for compatibility, not performance or features. Just because something has OpenGL doesn't mean it will be the same.

In fact, this should be a downright embarrassment to Apple if they'd even care about that. Shows just how crappy OpenGL in OSX is thanks to Apple.

Now the question is, how many bugs does it have in Linux GL. That was always an issue with Apple OpenGL games was the number of bugs they had. Mostly because of the incomplete or archaic Open GL drivers Apple would use. Linux OpenGL may be getting a buff if it isn't having to render everything that DX is.
Posted on Reply
#11
DannibusX
"Of course your propietary, DRM controlled and inherently evil software performs better on Linux." ~ Richard Stallman (tomorrow)
Posted on Reply
#12
Dj-ElectriC
If optimization done right, there's doubt that Linux runs things better. Is that really suprising anyone?
BTW about openGL, if image quality is your goal you can reach a very high one these days Erocker, much hugher than any PC game thesedays can supply.
Posted on Reply
#13
seronx
d3d9 vs god knows what version of opengl

:rolleyes:

Last time I checked the latest version of DirectX* is faster and provides better image quality than OpenGL.

d3d11.1/11
Posted on Reply
#14
makwy2
Too bad you have to use Linux. This is like telling a runner,you can run 5% faster in one race if you agree to be in inconstant pain while not racing. Not worth it.

Ah well, I'll take the totally minor hit for the ease of use, huge application library, and compatibility that Windows 7 offers.
Posted on Reply
#15
SIGSEGV
by: makwy2
Too bad you have to use Linux. This is like telling a runner,you can run 5% faster in one race if you agree to be in inconstant pain while not racing. Not worth it.

Ah well, I'll take the totally minor hit for the ease of use, huge application library, and compatibility that Windows 7 offers.
thanks god, i never touch my windows except for gaming, if only many games already ported to linux environtment, i will #rm -rf /dev/windows_mnt/

that's why i said this is very positive :)
Posted on Reply
#16
Melvis
No surprise there :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#19
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: erocker
I wonder how an openGL version of L4D2 would work on a Windows machine?
I reckon it would perform similarly to the Linux version.

DirectX performance really is crap and has gotten worse since Vista, even with DX9 (and lower) games. I benched it myself a couple of years ago and posted about it on TPU. BazookaJoe a few posts back is quite right about the performance drop. I reckon it's the protected media path drm that's baked into Vista and later that does it, but I've never seen anything to support or negate this to say for sure.

It's developments like this that will hopefully give Microsoft a kick up the backside and make them improve. I can't wait for Linux gaming to take off and driver and apps support to improve. Then it's goodbye Windows and your f* product activation and high cost.
Posted on Reply
#20
HossHuge
What is the reason that more companies don't want to make games for the Linux platform.

It just makes sense to me. Instead of spending money on an o/s the gamer has more money to spend on games.
Posted on Reply
#21
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
They should try updating the Source engine for DirectX 11 then. In terms of game engines, Source engine is ancient. It isn't clear what OGL version they targeted on Linux but I bet it isn't 2.0/2.1 (equivilent of DirectX 9.0c).

12.2% gain also isn't thing to gawk at when you're already well over 100 fps.


by: HossHuge
What is the reason that more companies don't want to make games for the Linux platform.
DirectX is easier. Even The Sims 3 and Spore, which were ported to OGL on Mac, they still use DirectX on Windows. Ubuntu and Apple address driver concerns with OGL on their OS. Microsoft addresses driver concerns with DirectX. You're more likely to get fewer issues using DirectX on Windows than using OpenGL.
Posted on Reply
#22
RejZoR
I find it strange that Source Engine hasn't evolved further. It sucks to wait for EP3 which will arrive god knows when to possibly get better graphics like we did with EP1 and EP2 which eventually migrated to all titles. DX9 used in L4D2 is really ancient despite the fact taht it doesn't look bad in general. But we all know DX11 could deliver better performance at exactly the same visuals or even better ones...
Posted on Reply
#23
n-ster
Yay Linux is less than 4% faster in probably the best of circumstances than Windows (303 vs 315 GPS)

I bet Steam/Valve are just twisting the numbers in their favor, they openly hated windows 8 And wanna be the first to concentrate on Linux gaming.

I call clever marketing ploy on this one
Posted on Reply
#24
FYFI13
by: erocker
I wonder how an openGL version of L4D2 would work on a Windows machine?
On same test W7 + OpenGL squeezed out 303FPS, which is more then W7 + DX, but still less then Ubuntu + OpenGL.
Posted on Reply
#25
FYFI13
by: makwy2
Too bad you have to use Linux. This is like telling a runner,you can run 5% faster in one race if you agree to be in inconstant pain while not racing. Not worth it.

Ah well, I'll take the totally minor hit for the ease of use, huge application library, and compatibility that Windows 7 offers.
Tell me the same in few years, once Microsoft drops Windows 7 support. Ballmer will destroy Microsoft, he's evil sent from Apple :fear:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment