• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Under Some Conditions, WINE Can Beat WinXP

If I remember correctly the Linux/WINE version of SETI@Home performed faster than the standard Windows client.
 
WINE maps calls for Window's services to the equivalent services in Linux. It's translation, not emulation. Linux does many (but not all) things better than Windows so it's not really that amazing. Roughly, things that are memory or storage intensive run very well while things that are graphically intensive lag.

 

Ya.. Wine is a Linux native implimentation of the Win32 API. There is no emulation going on at all. Or at least not in the technical sense. All your stuff pretty much runs directly in Linux, but instead of using Gnome or KDE libraries, it's using wine stuff.

Oh, and indeed Wine is faster and better at Windows then Windows is... except when it comes to running and installing Windows programs. 😛

Certainly ABI compatability with Windows is a big goal with Wine, but it's unacheivable. Windows is to big, to secret (with docs that are often misleading or even outright lies about how certain things work), to complex to ever acheive compatability without direct access to the source code. Which wine folks won't touch with a 100 mile long pole, unless MS says it's ok (which they won't).

The more important thing IMO is Winelib, which allows developers to easily port their own applications not only to Linux, but also to other non-x86 platforms (using Linux or other Wine-supported platform, of course as the base). There are usually minimal changes a developer has to do, and then linux compatability is only a recompile away.

Another thing to note is that Wine is often faster then GNU/Linux itself. Benchmarks of Firefox running in Wine tend to be faster then Firefox directly in GNU/Linux. There are certain aspects to items like the GCC compiler, dealing with poling text files (as opposed to using the windows registry), glibc and things like that that make Linux sometimes slower with highly interactive programs/desktop apps. Customization usually can overcome these limitations pretty easily though.
 
Originally posted by: Robor
If I remember correctly the Linux/WINE version of SETI@Home performed faster than the standard Windows client.
I think that was more due to the fact that the seti people optimized the windows version much more than the linux version. Not so much to do with wine.

I've also heard many accusations elsewhere that these benchmarks are largely artificial, even to the point of testing things that the wine devs have specifically worked very hard on (the ones where wine wins) but that they leave out a whole slew of other areas where the comparison wouldn't be nearly so pretty. I don't know the truth to this, but it doesn't seem entirely reasonable to me that wine should achieve better than windows on any large scale.
 
It's quite amazing that wine is able to run 3dmark2001 and wow, it means that they now have decent support even for directX, albeit much slower than windows (in directx).
 
There is directX support for Wine for a while now and there is a version of wine you can get with a working DirectX 9 support.

People play World of Warcraft quite nicely using Wine with not nessicarially much of a slow down at all. That's a DirectX 9 game. There are a few other games.

If your using a ATI video card it'll pretty much suck always. Nvidia hardware will run about the same speed as it does in Windows.
 
Interesting that they use UT2004 as a test. They should have also included the speed of the native Linux version for comparison.
 
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Interesting that they use UT2004 as a test. They should have also included the speed of the native Linux version for comparison.


I believe native UT2004 on linux is maybe 5-10% slower than windows. Not sure exactly though die to the fact the my vid card is only overclocked in windows.
 
Originally posted by: DidlySquat
^^ yeah like i'm gonna risk a $500 video card on some out-of-date hack

You have to be joking right?

In my eyes spending 500 dollars on a video card, unless it's a special purpose thing, is a total waste of money. Then even overclocking that is worse, even with your uber-overclocking utilities.

Why not wait 3 months and buy the card when it's 240 dollars? Or buy the next generation one that would be faster, even without a overclock, for 300?

Doesn't make much sense to me at all.

I'll happily overclock some 100 dollar thing that is a a year old in order to play newer games at a decent framerate, but it's mostly about it.
 
Originally posted by: DidlySquat
^^ yeah like i'm gonna risk a $500 video card on some out-of-date hack
You can OC using nvidia-settings (included with the display driver).

Just add `Option ?Coolbits? ?1?` to your X config (nvidia section) to enable it.
 
Originally posted by: xcript
Originally posted by: DidlySquat
^^ yeah like i'm gonna risk a $500 video card on some out-of-date hack
You can OC using nvidia-settings (included with the display driver).

Just add `Option ?Coolbits? ?1?` to your X config (nvidia section) to enable it.


awesome I will try that !!! I was wondering if there is a coolbits option in nvidia's linux driver.....thanks !!!!

regarding $500 video cards it's just a matter of priorities. I like to play games on a large screen with very high resolution (1920x1200), and also like to see all the graphical effects that the game designer provided, so I run the game on the highest quality settings. To get a decent frame rate in these conditions (and decent means around 60 or more because I dont like sluggish feeling games) you need a high end video card of the 7800 or X1800 series. You can research that if you don't believe me, but I already looked at enough benchmark to tell you that no $250 video (or even $350) card was capable of giving me the performance I consider satisfactory. So for the amount of enjoyment I get from using the card I thought it was totally worth $500 and it will also probably not need to be upgraded for quite some time.
 
Originally posted by: DidlySquat
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Interesting that they use UT2004 as a test. They should have also included the speed of the native Linux version for comparison.


I believe native UT2004 on linux is maybe 5-10% slower than windows. Not sure exactly though die to the fact the my vid card is only overclocked in windows.


Native UT2004 on linux for me runs much faster. This is in 64bit linux vs 64 bit windows after epic released 64bit binarys for UT2004. I'd say at least 10% better frame rates in linux. A lot of frame rate problems come from not switching to the Nvidia openGL librarys and keeping the standard X librarys.

My specs AMD64 3500 with a BFG 6800 GT 256meg pci-e. 2 gigs of ddr 400 from OCZ (2 sticks), SATA hard drive (300gig), DFI lanparty Ultra-D. I am playing with everything turned all the way up (except AA because I never notice a difference at 1600x1200) with my dell 2001fp's native res (1600x1200)
 
nice ninja but 6800 GT can't really cut it at max quality with games like fear, quake 4 and far cry. UT2004 is a reatively older game and I know many serious gamer which run it even with a 6600GT, or even lower. I'd say for newer games you need a 7800GT at least for 1600x1200 with high quality.

Anyway, it's nice to know that linux is faster then windows in UT2004. I haven't measured it exactly in this game, but I did in Doom 3 (native) and the result was 5% faster in windows. Your results might be related to the fact it's a 64-bit program. In fact I did once try out the 64-bit linux version and it was almost exactly the same as the 32-bit version (both running on 64-bit linux). I heard that the difference (32 vs 64 bit) can only be measured in very large multiplayer maps.
 
Well suite yourself. Don't think that I'd look down on you for buying a expensive card, if you have the money to blow on something like that and you want to then by all means do so. 🙂

Although keep in mind that overclocking is going to suck for hardware reliability irregardless on what tool you use to acheive it.
 
Back
Top