A video for any doubters that Linux gaming is better than Windows in which it DESTROYS Windows by 25% in AC Odyssey. To put it in perspective, 25% improvement is like getting a new GPU. You can save $600 and instead use something like OpenSUSE Tumbleweed for free.
DISCLAIMER: I don’t really care to make Linux look better but I did a video some days ago and EVERYONE (on Reddit) told me Linux gaming CANNOT be faster or smoother. This is the proof it’s both and more videos will be coming.
Dude, honestly stop making such “crazy” things.
Prople will debunk you then hit you to the ground. Just say the truth of the gimmiky things you do because a 25% performance boost is unreal.
A 5% to a maximum 10% is more believable but your stuff is a quarter of a video card processing power and this should ring you a bell of alarm because the doodoo you are eating there is pure BS.
Say what you will, I posted ALL the settings and updates and OBS Settings in video form. I am not obliged to do any of these things. People have come here stating that they don’t believe this is real without ANY arguments. When you want to talk seriously, maybe, we can do it.
Linux gaming is a little hit or miss. Some games have a performance boost. Some are about the same. And some games perform worse. This is the reality. And this is what should be expected.
Your post is still true for your specific hardware and this specific game, with these specific drivers, but let’s not go crazy here. Linux is good, yes. Fantastic even, on the Steam Deck. On PC most people are better off sticking with Windows, especially if you play a couple of competitive multiplayer titles. Or if you want to stream games from one device to another in house. Or if you have limited time and just want shit to work. Linux is getting closer, but the out of the box experience need to become way better and I don’t doubt it will sooner rather than later.
I really hate seeing the words “Linux is getting closer” as if the entire point of running Linux is an alternative platform to run games on.
It is not, Linux is really not any different than it was when the first distributions released. This is it. Yes things like DXVK and WINE and Proton are going to improve, but those things are not Linux, they are software that RUNS on Linux. If you actually want to make the switch to Linux, then you aren’t going to wait until it is “perfect” because none of it is ever going to be perfect, that is the nature of all things in the universe. If you truly want to embrace something, you have to embrace the bullshit as well, that’s why I made the switch 17-18 years ago and never went back to windows for a daily.
The entire point of Linux is to have a malleable free and open source operating system that can be used for any application from desktop to server to embedded. The fact alone that it is a different operating system will already change the ways you do things, but the additional fact that it is not supported on the desktop front by corporations but rather the community means you will have to make sacrifices, but a community backing will give so much more in the end.
I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux,” and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use.
Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
No, Richard, it’s ‘Linux’, not ‘GNU/Linux’. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.
Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.
One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS – more on this later). He named it ‘Linux’ with a little help from his friends. Why doesn’t he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff – including the software I wrote using GCC – and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don’t want to be known as a nag, do you?
(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title ‘GNU/Linux’ (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn’t the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you’ve heard this one before. Get used to it. You’ll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.
You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn’t more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn’t perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.
Last, I’d like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn’t be fighting among ourselves over naming other people’s software. But what the heck, I’m in a bad mood now. I think I’m feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn’t you and everyone refer to GCC as ‘the Linux compiler’? Or at least, ‘Linux GCC’? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?
If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:
Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux’ huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don’t be a nag.
Thanks for listening.
This went south, east, north and west at the same time. Calm down people :)
It should have went southeast and northwest
The Linux gaming experience is better than Windows on AMD. Period. I’ve been testing games on many systems (mostly on AMD) through the Proton years. I just want t debunk the myth that Linux gaming is worse. Cause it’s not. It’s better.
Depends. I need Parsec as host. Or something equivalent. And I couldn’t find it. So I’m stuck where I am.
It is amazing that person’s entire argument amounts to “nuh-uh”. Like okay… they’re confident someone will debunk it, but they aren’t going to?
Sounds like they shouldn’t be so confident then.
Inform yourself what a “video card core” does, how many “transistors” has, what “clock core speed” does and what cache levels is and does.
Out of the bat this guy has 25% more transistors in his core then the entire original GPU and LOOKS FISHY AF.
Straight out of the bat 25% more transistors! Outrageous.
He also got more likes than me with his no-post. Be reminded of that. People live on copium.
You’ll rarely be more downvoted than when you’re the OP of a thread where people disagree with you I’m afraid.
I don’t mind that but what I do mind is people not believing the video without any reason. It goes to show how deeply rooted the bias is.
@ReverseModule @Excrubulent is it only me, or the video has no sound at all?
Sound works fine for me.