Valve and Linux

Interesting, I guess. But getting the Source engine to run faster is completely redundant at this point. I can pull upwards of 200 FPS in every Source game on a i7 930 @ 4.0GHz, 6GB of RAM and a 560Ti.
 
piscian18 said:
Just need to correct your thread title. So far Source is far faster on Linux

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...urce-Engine-Runs-Better-on-Linux-Than-Windows
Click to expand...

It's not really far faster, FPS isn't linear.

My post from the other thread
socK said:
Linux / OGL:
3.1746 ms/f

Windows / DX
3.6900 ms/f

Difference
0.5154 ms/f

So when the FPS isn't so inflated, that difference could mean you'd get 57 fps instead of 55.4 fps. It's still a nice chunk of free time, but not a stomp like some people seem to think the numbers indicating -- and they said they'll be looking into mitigating the performance margin for the DX path as well.

The way they describe it, it looks like the DX9 driver overhead is where OGL manages to eek out the win; OGL draw calls were cheaper until DX10+ came around. If Valve decided to drop the legacy shit and have a proper DX11 path, they'd probably have plenty of performance benefits to reap.
Click to expand...

And then again, it also probably depends on the map, scene, current state of the lunar cycle, etc. That difference might evaporate, it might widen, it depends. But for the time being, it looks like they're CPU bound (wowee a Source engine game is CPU bound, how shocking). DX9 batches are more expensive than OGL, a problem DX10+ was literally designed to fix. OGL has (had) it's share of legacy cruft, DX

It's kind of interesting that they're paying for their backwards compatibility this way. Maybe they can work to alleviate the situation with better state management among other things, but we'll have to wait to see.
 
krameriffic said:
Interesting, I guess. But getting the Source engine to run faster is completely redundant at this point. I can pull upwards of 200 FPS in every Source game on a i7 930 @ 4.0GHz, 6GB of RAM and a 560Ti.
Click to expand...



I'm going to make a bold prediction here; moving to OpenGL and performance testing the OpenGL and Linux speed isn't about "improving" the Source engine or even targeting Linux users as customers - it's about benchmarking OpenGL vs. DirectX performance differences when paired up with a Source-style engine. I'd bet these are preliminary tests for an all-new engine by Valve that is completely OpenGL - I believe that doing this testing by porting Source is more to test their skills as a team with OpenGL, as well as having the side effect of making sure they back catalog runs on Linux/Mac/Windows.

Now why go the extra distance to include Linux users? Like many people hearing rumors of Valve working on a console - I too believe they are working on one.

Notice I said working on one, not producing one; my BIG PREDICTION is that Valve is furthering their relationship with Sony and that the next Playstation will have a download/distribution system designed by Valve and that Valve will forego working with XBL (which they hate) and DirectX.

I think Valve's end goal here is to create a newer, more maintainable Source engine for future games that is OpenGL-only (saving them the work of also coding a DirectX branch), ditching Xbox, and aiming to make Steam a platform where people can buy a game and download/play it on their Linux/Mac/Windows computers or PS4, which not only would be attractive to customers but easier on developers who want to target 4 platforms with one graphics API
 
I'm doubtful that they'll dump the DX path, but I'm curious as to what they'll do when they drop a game on the next Xbox. If they end up with a DX11 path for that platform, will PC get it?
 
socK said:
I'm doubtful that they'll dump the DX path, but I'm curious as to what they'll do when they drop a game on the next Xbox. If they end up with a DX11 path for that platform, will PC get it?
Click to expand...

DX version and OpenGL version, then port to consoles.. it will be a nightmare development wise but Valve needs Linux in order to survive long term. MS is integrating the Windows Store right into Windows 8, and GFWL has been completely overhauled and integrated into the WIndows 8 OS, rebranded as Xbox Live for Windows.

Valve is being pushed aside on the Windows platform by inbox and revamped software by MS. This is why they are scared of Windows 8 and doing everything they can to get their loyal fans to run to Linux with them.

Unfortunately, an OpenGL game library would be tiny.
 
socK said:
I'm doubtful that they'll dump the DX path, but I'm curious as to what they'll do when they drop a game on the next Xbox. If they end up with a DX11 path for that platform, will PC get it?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised to see them push away from the CBOC platform entirely, and like other posters have said Valve is apprehensive about the direct Windows/DX seems to be taking and have done a lot of new work with OpenGL.

Also, Gabe hated dealing with XBL and Microsoft, Valves games work best when they have control over the product and updates and not when they have to delay and accumulate updates so a third party (XBL) can push out less frequent updates.


Here's Gabe's opinion on XBOX and the PS3 and working with/on both:

"We thought that there would be something that would emerge, because we figured it was a sort of untenable... Oh yeah, we understand that these are the rules now, but it's such a train wreck that something will have to change.

"That's why we're really happy with the current situation with the PS3," he said. "We're solving it now in a way that is going to work for our customers, rather than assuming something is going to emerge later that will allow us to fix this."

after saying that their assumption that Microsoft would give them control over their games was "such a trainwreck"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top