Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux vs Windows graphics comparison

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Linux vs Windows graphics comparison

    I have a question, possibly for Epic or any Linux beta testers (if there are any at this point).

    While I anxiously await the Linux demo, or full game, I stopped by a friends house to check out UT3 on his rig, and I must say, it looks beautiful.

    With the same hardware, graphics card (8800GTX for example), and max settings, will UT3 look the same under Linux as it does under Windows?

    --Kevin

    #2
    Maybe, Maybe not.

    Comment


      #3
      yeah, who wants to pay M$??????????

      Comment


        #4
        +1

        i am waiting for the linux demo to think about buying the game too.

        Comment


          #5
          It will be running on OpenGL, so I'm assuming it will be the same (if not better) than the PS3 version.

          Comment


            #6
            wondering, is opengl any good compared to dx 10?

            i remember i got INCREDIBLE graphics with opengl on ut 99 that betterd dx 9c

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Green_Day_584 View Post
              wondering, is opengl any good compared to dx 10?

              i remember i got INCREDIBLE graphics with opengl on ut 99 that betterd dx 9c
              take a look at the Opengl 2.1 vs DX9/10 graphics... OGL2.x looks just as good if not better:

              http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/inde...howtopic=13647

              The question is, does UT3 Linux support Opengl 2.1??

              --Kp

              Comment


                #8
                I wouldn't call a lot of those fair comparisons...So many different games :/. Also, did they make their own version of nvidias head? the openGL2.1 thing to the bottom left looks exactly like the directX10 render...It makes me skeptical of the credibility of the list as a whole.

                If you keep reading through the thread, people even start to say the Opengl shots were pre-rendered, or stolen from DirectX10...

                At least they are cleaning up their code though :/

                Comment


                  #9
                  Technically OpenGL and DirectX are the same.
                  It's just that OpenGL took some lateness implementing killer features for games into the official API. But all the functions that are "missing" in the official OpenGL API are already available through extensions implemented by nVidia or ATI drivers.

                  That's what OpenGL 2.x brings: all the important extensions are now officially included in the API.

                  The OpenGL 3.x branch will bring the "object-oriented" way of developing that is missing, compared to DirectX. In OpenGL 2, some objects are used, like shaders, but not every types. But in OpenGL 3, everything will be objects. So, goodbye the Begin() / End() couple of functions!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by polymer View Post
                    I wouldn't call a lot of those fair comparisons...So many different games :/. Also, did they make their own version of nvidias head? the openGL2.1 thing to the bottom left looks exactly like the directX10 render...It makes me skeptical of the credibility of the list as a whole.

                    If you keep reading through the thread, people even start to say the Opengl shots were pre-rendered, or stolen from DirectX10...

                    At least they are cleaning up their code though :/
                    Actually, most dx10/dx9 comparative screenshots (especially those issued by microsoft) are horribly stacked in favor of dx10 by showing something of very very poor quality as being dx9 - see my comments below.

                    Technically, it's not a matter of dx10 versus opengl, it's a matter of what the hardware can do. And opengl can address all of the hardware features just as well as dx10.

                    Those screenshots do hardly look anything you'd see ingame, be it dx9 or dx10. It's still perfectly possible that they are rendered with dx9/dx10/opengl though. You don't know at what framerate those things are running.

                    By the way, check the link to the dx9/dx10 comparisons (http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/inde...howtopic=95500): they are completly ridiculous.

                    Let's break them down: the "dx9" version of flight simulator x: no fog, a fugly very low resolution skybox texture (no, you can't put real textures on the sky in dx9 despite what all games doing it want you to believe), a rudimentary water shader that would already have looked **** back when the geforce3 was released.
                    The dx10 version shows nothing that can't be done in dx9.

                    Halo: Hey, let's compare an ingame shot of some poorly-looking xbox grade ingame graphics with some experimental, technical demoesque pre-rendered shots of heads in crysis.

                    Age of Conan: I know that there is little to nothing really dx10 specific in that game except perhaps the default settings, and I know that because I worked as a coder on that game. Notice in particular how they disabled the post render effect in the dx9 version, because you know, dx9 can't do those. Forget all those game that have been doing it for years.
                    Also note how they reduced the depth of view, because obviously the same graphic card is wayyy slower in dx9 than dx10.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      That isn't unlikely^^ I understand there is a lot of PR behind those render's. We'll see I guess, I just haven't had a ton of faith in opengl...Seems strange a company wouldn't want to support a free API...Unless the negatives outweigh the positive of being free...

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I will have UT3 with dual boot XP_64 and FC5_64 to compare FPS and how it looks. FPS is a good way to compare. How it looks is a more than a bit subjective. It will depend on the driver most likely. But, they will likely be too close to call.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I've noticed that, although I do not see any visual differences, games run much better in Linux than in Windows, at least on my computer. Case in point: Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. I set up my computer to dual-boot Windows Vista and Fedora 7 Linux. Download the Windows version, boom, it crashes. Needed to run it as administrator. Run it again, I'm missing a DLL. Downloaded the DLL. Ran it again, finally get to click on a server to join, boom! I need an update. Very impatient at this point, I download the update. Now I finally get to get in the game, and graphics are messed up. Jagged lines everywhere. Upgraded my crappy integrated graphics card's drivers, worked fine... except for the fact that all my other games don't run with the newer drivers :-( Restarted the computer into Linux, downloaded the .run installer, ran it, and had absolutely no problems. I also experience no lag (on Windows, it would lag sometimes during large firefights). I'll take the Linux version of any game that has one. Unfortunately UT3 does not run on my computer yet, kernel32.dll errors and c0000005 access violations (all games I play on Windows get that message sometimes, need a new graphics card).

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X