Quoting: TheRiddickThe nouveau drivers are making progress and once NVIDIA is pushed into releasing the appropriate firmware files then it will likely perform extremely competitively VS MESA once that happens, this can be shown in the 500 or 600 series results with the driver as those have the full firmware files to allow reclocking et al.

My guess is NVIDIA are just waiting until AMD and MESA starts to overtake their drivers, atm I don't think they believe it will happen so thus aren't in any rush to compete. However with valve now also working on AMD drivers (since their open anyone can help) I think NVIDIA might be in for a surprise sometime around end of year.

Once NVIDIA is pushed? Don't hold your breath. They're not "in any rush to compete" because Linux is 1-2% of the market and so they'd quite likely rather lose big chunks of the Linux desktop than expose any of their secret sauce. AMD does care a bit about Linux because they're scrambling for every tiny scrap of market share they can get.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: razing32

Quoting: Purple Library GuyFor a second I thought this had something to do with Lindows [External Link] (and boy, does that take me back!)

OK curios now , did that fork into anything ?
Or did all the distros go towards a dead end ? :(

Far as I know, dead end. Well, sort of. On one hand, if Wine isn't ready to be a reliable general Windows (not an) emulator now, it certainly wasn't back then. On the other, the Lindows/Linspire/Xandros pushes towards certain user-friendly innovations were . . . I dunno how to put it. Seems like they were kind of too in-house, too forked, too specialized, and so both hard for a small outfit to maintain, and kind of losing the broader help that is normally an open source advantage. They were hoping they would not remain small, but their hope was not rewarded. So their stuff kind of died and I don't think it was workable to incorporate the stuff they'd done elsewhere. Open source is not kind to people who think they are such Awes0me D00ds that they can do it way better all by themselves than the community can.

But I do think that their example/challenge helped to inspire some of the other distributions that worked on user-friendliness while staying closer to upstream, and software projects like Synaptic and so on that made things easier across many distributions. All the things they were trying to do either got done and better than they ever imagined, or in the case of Wine are still being vigorously worked on because they turn out to be really hard.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Philadelphus

Quoting: M@yeulCInvert gravity, and you're off to very bad thing.
Invert electromagnetism, and you'll have your limbs splitting off. At least you may still have planets and stars...
But that's nothing compared to what happens if you Invert the strong force...

And invert the weak force and…I don't know, I've never been able to nail down a clear answer on how exactly it works. Free neutrons might get a half-life longer than 15 minutes?

Well, apparently it's responsible for nuclear fusion, so no stars, for one thing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: M@yeulCThere are some theories that proclaim that our universe works that way, with these constants, because it makes life more likely, thus more likely for us to be sitting into it.

Since that's just assuming life to be a desirable result of the creation of the universe without any tangible theory of why this would be so, that's a fairly unscientific view of things. But I guess people still need to think that they are so special that the entire universe was made just for us, even if there is not the slightest sliver of evidence to support that.

Not really what that sort-of-scientific notion is about. It's maybe easier to dig if you assume massively multiple parallel universes with all different rules. Which universe would we be in? The one with rules that allow us to exist in it. Similarly, can we expect our universe is a big one or a small one? Big, because on average there's gonna be a lot more life in the big ones. Et cetera.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

For a second I thought this had something to do with Lindows [External Link] (and boy, does that take me back!)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Hmmm . . . I suck at those games too. I'll have to keep an eye on this.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MadeanaccounttocommentThe results also show an FPS increase which is weird because from what I've gathered this feature shouldn't improve FPS. Someone on forums mentioned it has something to do with the benchmark restarting itself but honestly I don't quite understand the explanation given.

Quoting: pal666there is no fps improvements from this feature. it is seen on benchmark only because benchmark is short and restarts game. if you don't restart game, you will see no fps improvements during play after first shader loads.

From the looks of that explanation, it sounds like the benchmark runs the game on some sort of loop--starts, "plays" for some set sequence, ends, and starts up again to run the game some more. So over the course of the benchmark, the game is restarted multiple times. If the restarts take less time, then over the course of the benchmark it will get through more frames just because more time is spent in game doing frames and less doing restarts. So you get an improvement in "FPS" over the whole run even though while the game is running it is not, in fact, doing more frames in a second.
Note that I have no idea whether this is true, but it looks like that's what this person is saying.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: KimyrielleI rarely look at performance numbers and benchmarks, as I am happy when game runs with enough FPS for me to be able to play it. I would however be curious if there are OTHER components holding back Linux performance other than OpenGL. In other words, if a game uses Vulkan on both Windows and Linux, would it perform exactly the same on both Linux and Windows? Or would Linux still be worse?

OK, disclaimer, I'm no developer and I can't back this up.
But the general zeitgeist I have from following vaguely this sort of thing for years comes down to: Aside from OpenGL problems, up to now graphics card drivers for Linux have tended to be slower, although that situation too has been improving and the nature of Vulkan seems to be such that it probably won't be nearly as much an issue for Vulkan stuff. But OS to OS, Linux itself is probably faster than Windows, and certainly lighter, so it wouldn't hog as much CPU or memory for itself, leaving more for the game. The "lighter" part of course depends on specifics like, KDE or XFCE or what? As I say, this is my general impression which I cannot cite any sources to defend, so take it for what it's worth.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Ehvis

Quoting: 0aTTThank you! Would be interesting to compare this with the Windows version of the game.

Windows DX11 performance was just above Vulkan in the previous beta. So this beta should just about match DX11 performance. So there is still a lot of optimisation work left to do.

To sum up: Better is better, but best would be best! ;)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GoLBuzzkillSmart guys!!! Unity is playing big role in Linux gaming being bad, their engine is shit, their performance is shit, they have bunch of Linux specific bugs, they are part of .Net foundation and all of their developers gets sexually aroused when they see C# code and .Net & D3D API calls, sick fucks. From F/LOSS perspective anyone who buys Unity based game is a traitor.

. . . This is that guy, isn't it?

View this comment - View article - View full comments