[Bug 59186] New: Starcraft 2 detects wrong graphics card
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 Bug ID: 59186 Summary: Starcraft 2 detects wrong graphics card Product: WineHQ Gitlab Version: unspecified Hardware: x86-64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: gitlab-unknown Assignee: wine-bugs@list.winehq.org Reporter: calmstorm@posteo.de Distribution: --- I am using a T480 and it has a HD graphics 820 yet it keeps detecting it as if its the intel HD 4000 series graphics card. It is kind of weird... I wonder why blizzard is detecting the wrong graphics card? Is this a wine issue? I think it is but I could be wrong. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #2 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- (In reply to Austin English from comment #1)
Not a gitlab bug.
What version of wine? Please attach the terminal output.
It was the latest staging for debian. I will have to check which. I will get the info later, on different comp right now. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 calmstorm@posteo.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|unspecified |11.0-rc4 -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #3 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- (In reply to calmstorm from comment #2)
(In reply to Austin English from comment #1)
Not a gitlab bug.
What version of wine? Please attach the terminal output.
It was the latest staging for debian. I will have to check which. I will get the info later, on different comp right now.
It seems that both the current wine staging and most of the previous ones have this problem it least in the last 10 or so versions. By terminal output, do you mean I do: wine ./executable after opening a terminal to the folder the software is in? Just asking, I haven't done this kind of stuff for a while. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 Austin English <austinenglish@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product|WineHQ Gitlab |Wine Component|gitlab-unknown |-unknown --- Comment #1 from Austin English <austinenglish@gmail.com> --- Not a gitlab bug. What version of wine? Please attach the terminal output. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 Zeb Figura <z.figura12@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |z.figura12@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Zeb Figura <z.figura12@gmail.com> --- (In reply to calmstorm from comment #3)
By terminal output, do you mean I do:
wine ./executable
after opening a terminal to the folder the software is in?
Yes. If there's more than a few lines of terminal output, you should redirect it to a file (wine file.exe &> log.txt), then compress and attach the log file. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #5 from Zeb Figura <z.figura12@gmail.com> --- That said, I don't think default terminal output is actually useful here; presumably wined3d can't detect your card and is falling back to a different one in its database. Instead please run `glxinfo &> info.txt` in a terminal and attach that. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #6 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- Created attachment 80058 --> http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=80058 output of glxinfo &> info.txt This is the output I got -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #7 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- Is anyone going to help me with this problem? I should also add, the processor I am using is i5-8250U and the computer is a thinkpad t480s -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #8 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- (In reply to calmstorm from comment #7)
Is anyone going to help me with this problem?
I should also add, the processor I am using is i5-8250U and the computer is a thinkpad t480s
Actually, correcting myself, thinkpad T480* but yeah the rest is true -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 calmstorm@posteo.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Distribution|--- |Debian -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 calmstorm@posteo.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|11.0-rc4 |11.9 --- Comment #9 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- Still persists in 11.9 and graphics are 620 uhd + last two entries -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 calmstorm@posteo.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |leslie_alistair@hotmail.com Component|-unknown |-unknown Product|Wine |Wine-staging -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 Stian Low <wineryyyyy@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wineryyyyy@gmail.com --- Comment #10 from Stian Low <wineryyyyy@gmail.com> --- (In reply to calmstorm from comment #9)
Still persists in 11.9 and graphics are 620 uhd + last two entries
Are there any other issues besides only the name of the graphics card appearing different in the game than the actual model? Does it cause any graphical bugs or prevent you from accessing any graphics settings features of your graphics card? If not then the issue seems very minor and low priority. glxinfo you attached for Zeb's request lists: OpenGL renderer string: Mesa Intel(R) UHD Graphics 620 (KBL GT2) Therefore wine seems to just be correctly reporting whatever your driver reports incorrectly. Therefore it seems the driver is at fault for listing the wrong graphics card and if that were fixed it would likely appear correct for wine. You indicated it is detected as Intel HD 4000 for first post but now you say 620. Did that change or did I miss something? -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #11 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- (In reply to Stian Low from comment #10)
(In reply to calmstorm from comment #9)
Still persists in 11.9 and graphics are 620 uhd + last two entries
Are there any other issues besides only the name of the graphics card appearing different in the game than the actual model?
Does it cause any graphical bugs or prevent you from accessing any graphics settings features of your graphics card?
If not then the issue seems very minor and low priority.
glxinfo you attached for Zeb's request lists: OpenGL renderer string: Mesa Intel(R) UHD Graphics 620 (KBL GT2)
Therefore wine seems to just be correctly reporting whatever your driver reports incorrectly.
Therefore it seems the driver is at fault for listing the wrong graphics card and if that were fixed it would likely appear correct for wine.
You indicated it is detected as Intel HD 4000 for first post but now you say 620. Did that change or did I miss something?
What I meant by 620, is that above I wrote 820, which it turns out was wrong. Actual is 620, 820 was what i thought it was. But its being reported as intel graphics 4000. Also I forgot to mention, starcraft 2 plays as if its running intel graphics 4000. I should be getting like 100 fps in it more often than not. I did a "can I play this game with my system check online" system requirements type check and intel graphics 4000 is like 11 fps or w/e on low. But uhd graphics 620 is supposed to give me 10x that speed. So I think its also behaving as if I am using intel hd graphics 4000. This is all very weird and wrong. I hope that helps to let you know. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #12 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- Try typing i5-8250U and UHD Graphics 620 into here with 16GB of ram or more https://technical.city/en/system-requirements/starcraft-2 Although upon further inspection, its possible my wine configuration is moving way slower than it should just in general. Something doesn't seem right. its very strange -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #13 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- Should I open a new issue about what i have noticed? A few things are happening: detecting intel hd graphics 4000 when its really uhd intel graphics 620 the speed of the graphics is bottlenecking very easily despite having 32GB of ram, etc... I checked and compared against my Ryzen 5 laptop with 7640U and 7000 radeon. It should be doing twice as slow according to the technical city website, but when I actually play, its more like 4x slower it least. Anywho, these are just some observations I noticed. Should I just open an entirely new thread? It seems like I may have realized there's more than a few problems here. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #14 from Stian Low <wineryyyyy@gmail.com> --- (In reply to calmstorm from comment #11)
What I meant by 620, is that above I wrote 820, which it turns out was wrong.
Thanks for clarifying. Your driver seems not at fault and correctly reporting then: Vendor: Intel (0x8086) Device: Mesa Intel(R) UHD Graphics 620 (KBL GT2) (0x5917) Therefore gpu_device_name() seems to be missing a mapping for your 0x5917 and already has a mapping for 0x5916 so it seems your model just needs to be added to the list and maybe elsewhere: case MAKELONG(0x8086, 0x3ea0): return "Intel(R) UHD Graphics 620"; case MAKELONG(0x8086, 0x5916): return "Intel(R) HD Graphics 620"; I'll add it and submit a merge request so that it will be supported for an upcoming release. (In reply to calmstorm from comment #13)
Should I open a new issue about what i have noticed?
I don't think opening a new bug report is necessary until the graphics card is supported because it may also solve the performance problem if it changes some graphics pipeline componnents with a correct mapping. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #15 from Stian Low <wineryyyyy@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Stian Low from comment #14)
(In reply to calmstorm from comment #13)
Should I open a new issue about what i have noticed?
I don't think opening a new bug report is necessary until the graphics card is supported because it may also solve the performance problem if it changes some graphics pipeline componnents with a correct mapping.
This graphics pipeline diff may result in improved performance for your card: {HW_VENDOR_INTEL, CARD_INTEL_IVBD, "Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000", DRIVER_INTEL_HD4000, 1536}, {HW_VENDOR_INTEL, CARD_INTEL_IVBM, "Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000", DRIVER_INTEL_HD4000, 1536}, {HW_VENDOR_INTEL, CARD_INTEL_UHD620, "Intel(R) UHD Graphics 620", DRIVER_INTEL_HD4000, 3072}, If support is defaulting to "Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000" as you indicated then 1536 is set for video memory support which is half of 3072 supported by "Intel(R) UHD Graphics 620" There may be other diffs that affect performance but this is most obvious so far. All share DRIVER_INTEL_HD4000 so hopefully that isn't the source of your "intel HD 4000 series graphics card" otherwise this particular diff may not apply. A snapshot of the game menu displaying the incorrect graphics card would be helpful if your able to upload it. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #16 from Stian Low <wineryyyyy@gmail.com> --- Created attachment 81020 --> http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=81020 Patch adding 0x5917 "Intel(R) UHD Graphics 620" support Attached patch may provide a fix if you're able to build for a test. I'll post the merge request soon. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #17 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- (In reply to Stian Low from comment #15)
(In reply to Stian Low from comment #14)
(In reply to calmstorm from comment #13)
Should I open a new issue about what i have noticed?
I don't think opening a new bug report is necessary until the graphics card is supported because it may also solve the performance problem if it changes some graphics pipeline componnents with a correct mapping.
This graphics pipeline diff may result in improved performance for your card:
{HW_VENDOR_INTEL, CARD_INTEL_IVBD, "Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000", DRIVER_INTEL_HD4000, 1536}, {HW_VENDOR_INTEL, CARD_INTEL_IVBM, "Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000", DRIVER_INTEL_HD4000, 1536}, {HW_VENDOR_INTEL, CARD_INTEL_UHD620, "Intel(R) UHD Graphics 620", DRIVER_INTEL_HD4000, 3072},
If support is defaulting to "Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000" as you indicated then 1536 is set for video memory support which is half of 3072 supported by "Intel(R) UHD Graphics 620"
There may be other diffs that affect performance but this is most obvious so far. All share DRIVER_INTEL_HD4000 so hopefully that isn't the source of your "intel HD 4000 series graphics card" otherwise this particular diff may not apply.
A snapshot of the game menu displaying the incorrect graphics card would be helpful if your able to upload it.
I will do that tomorrow probably as long as I remember -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #18 from Stian Low <wineryyyyy@gmail.com> --- (In reply to calmstorm from comment #17)
I will do that tomorrow probably as long as I remember
No worries. Merge request pending review: https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/10990 -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #19 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- Created attachment 81021 --> http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=81021 proof of bug I was going to wait, but what the heck... I uploaded a screenshot from scrot. Hope this helps -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #20 from Stian Low <wineryyyyy@gmail.com> --- (In reply to calmstorm from comment #19)
Created attachment 81021 [details] proof of bug
I was going to wait, but what the heck... I uploaded a screenshot from scrot. Hope this helps
Thanks for screenshot which indeed seems to confirm wine defaults to "Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000" which is assigned lower video memory than your actual card supports (1536 vs 3072) so this patch should improve that and perhaps in-game performance. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #21 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- (In reply to Stian Low from comment #20)
(In reply to calmstorm from comment #19)
Created attachment 81021 [details] proof of bug
I was going to wait, but what the heck... I uploaded a screenshot from scrot. Hope this helps
Thanks for screenshot which indeed seems to confirm wine defaults to "Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000" which is assigned lower video memory than your actual card supports (1536 vs 3072) so this patch should improve that and perhaps in-game performance.
I await whatever version of wine-staging this will be added to and when as well. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #22 from Stian Low <wineryyyyy@gmail.com> --- (In reply to calmstorm from comment #21)
I await whatever version of wine-staging this will be added to and when as well.
Changes have been merged with master so patch will be available for next release of wine without and with staging. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #23 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- (In reply to Stian Low from comment #22)
(In reply to calmstorm from comment #21)
I await whatever version of wine-staging this will be added to and when as well.
Changes have been merged with master so patch will be available for next release of wine without and with staging.
Looks fixed, I just updated and I went on sc2 and it showed that I could have high settings if I wanted. Which is amazing because even Ryzen 5 7640U didn't give me that option lol. It said medium. So all in all, thanks! As long as nothing else happens, this should be fixed -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #24 from Stian Low <wineryyyyy@gmail.com> --- (In reply to calmstorm from comment #23)
So all in all, thanks! As long as nothing else happens, this should be fixed
Thanks for reporting. Sorry for delays. Please report any further issues and close bug as fixed after enough testing. Happy gaming. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 calmstorm@posteo.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED --- Comment #25 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- (In reply to Stian Low from comment #24)
(In reply to calmstorm from comment #23)
So all in all, thanks! As long as nothing else happens, this should be fixed
Thanks for reporting. Sorry for delays.
Please report any further issues and close bug as fixed after enough testing.
Happy gaming.
I tried it a bunch and I think I got a 50% boost in speed. Which is still good, but I wonder if improvements can be made in other areas. Either way, I don't know what those would be and this looks solved to me. I'd say this is resolved at least right now. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #26 from Stian Low <wineryyyyy@gmail.com> --- (In reply to calmstorm from comment #25)
I tried it a bunch and I think I got a 50% boost in speed.
Which is still good, but I wonder if improvements can be made in other areas.
Either way, I don't know what those would be and this looks solved to me.
I'd say this is resolved at least right now.
Boosting your video memory to 32 GB as reported by your glxinfo instead of value copied from original existing Intel 620 which only has 3GB for some reason. Change is based on addition of new Qualcomm Adreno GPU whose gpu memory will be set to exact value reported by that users glxinfo: https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/11062 Hopefully won't break anything for you and perhaps improves performance even more. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #27 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- (In reply to Stian Low from comment #26)
(In reply to calmstorm from comment #25)
I tried it a bunch and I think I got a 50% boost in speed.
Which is still good, but I wonder if improvements can be made in other areas.
Either way, I don't know what those would be and this looks solved to me.
I'd say this is resolved at least right now.
Boosting your video memory to 32 GB as reported by your glxinfo instead of value copied from original existing Intel 620 which only has 3GB for some reason.
Change is based on addition of new Qualcomm Adreno GPU whose gpu memory will be set to exact value reported by that users glxinfo:
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/11062
Hopefully won't break anything for you and perhaps improves performance even more.
If you are able to do so, that would REALLY help. :D -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #28 from Stian Low <wineryyyyy@gmail.com> --- (In reply to calmstorm from comment #27)
If you are able to do so, that would REALLY help. :D
Indeed, this prior bug related to 620 gpu helped clarify that merge request should have set your gpu memory to 32GB per your glxinfo instead of 3GB which I just copied from existing 620 entry: https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59008#c7 Pending merge request will probably improve even more drastically than first merge and hopefully resolve Red Dead hangs for other reporter if they have the same gpu. I'll update when 32GB support is merged and ready for more testing. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #29 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- (In reply to Stian Low from comment #28)
(In reply to calmstorm from comment #27)
If you are able to do so, that would REALLY help. :D
Indeed, this prior bug related to 620 gpu helped clarify that merge request should have set your gpu memory to 32GB per your glxinfo instead of 3GB which I just copied from existing 620 entry:
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59008#c7
Pending merge request will probably improve even more drastically than first merge and hopefully resolve Red Dead hangs for other reporter if they have the same gpu.
I'll update when 32GB support is merged and ready for more testing.
I tried using the most recent patch, didn't seem to improve my speed much. The newest wine patch improved it less than the last one. Not trying to be critical, but yeah it seemed not to improve much. Maybe the patch you mentioned hasn't been merged though? Either that or there is a different problem limiting my speed -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #30 from Stian Low <wineryyyyy@gmail.com> --- (In reply to calmstorm from comment #29)
I tried using the most recent patch, didn't seem to improve my speed much.
The newest wine patch improved it less than the last one. Not trying to be critical, but yeah it seemed not to improve much.
Maybe the patch you mentioned hasn't been merged though?
Either that or there is a different problem limiting my speed
Thanks for testing and feedback. Merge request is still under review and may need a more nuanced approach for setting default max gpu memory for cards that share system ram. Your glxinfo reports ~32GB but red dead bug for same gpu reports ~24GB. Unclear what happens when setting gpu max memory higher than what is technically available for systems with less ram so I'll have to take a closer look. Regardless however, if max gpu memory boost does not offer a speed up then lags may be caused by how the graphics pipeline logic handles rendering Starcraft 2. Regarding latest patch, the only change that should impact your system is a one liner ~3GB boost to ~32GB max gpu memory support. It seem counterintuitive that supporting more GPU memory would slow it down. The majority of the latest patch adds support for a new Qualcomm Adreno GPU which should have no effect with regards to your card. If you can confirm that 3GB is definitely faster than 32GB max gpu support then that is worth investigating further. Can you provide stats on how much RAM/GPU memory the game consumes while running? I'll take a closer look at graphics pipeline to see if anything else may be slowing it down. I have a GPU that shares RAM memory so I'll try to reproduce any odd behavior which may differ from GPUs with dedicated memory. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #31 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- (In reply to Stian Low from comment #30)
(In reply to calmstorm from comment #29)
I tried using the most recent patch, didn't seem to improve my speed much.
The newest wine patch improved it less than the last one. Not trying to be critical, but yeah it seemed not to improve much.
Maybe the patch you mentioned hasn't been merged though?
Either that or there is a different problem limiting my speed
Thanks for testing and feedback.
Merge request is still under review and may need a more nuanced approach for setting default max gpu memory for cards that share system ram.
Your glxinfo reports ~32GB but red dead bug for same gpu reports ~24GB. Unclear what happens when setting gpu max memory higher than what is technically available for systems with less ram so I'll have to take a closer look.
Regardless however, if max gpu memory boost does not offer a speed up then lags may be caused by how the graphics pipeline logic handles rendering Starcraft 2.
Regarding latest patch, the only change that should impact your system is a one liner ~3GB boost to ~32GB max gpu memory support.
It seem counterintuitive that supporting more GPU memory would slow it down.
The majority of the latest patch adds support for a new Qualcomm Adreno GPU which should have no effect with regards to your card.
If you can confirm that 3GB is definitely faster than 32GB max gpu support then that is worth investigating further.
Can you provide stats on how much RAM/GPU memory the game consumes while running?
I'll take a closer look at graphics pipeline to see if anything else may be slowing it down. I have a GPU that shares RAM memory so I'll try to reproduce any odd behavior which may differ from GPUs with dedicated memory.
Actually, its not slower the 32GB max gpu support. Its about the same, I didn't notice a difference for some reason. its very peculiar. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #32 from Stian Low <wineryyyyy@gmail.com> --- (In reply to calmstorm from comment #31)
Actually, its not slower the 32GB max gpu support.
Its about the same, I didn't notice a difference for some reason. its very peculiar.
Thanks for clarifying. Are you using EGL rendering? I've been taking a closer look at the code and there seems to be mechanisms based on driver features for setting GPU memory and other resources. Therefore my patch may have only been useful for fallback scenarios but it still seems to apply at least for for what in-game graphics menus report for GPU. renderer=vulkan (DAMAVAND) may work for Starcraft 2 but often it has lower performance than default gl/WINED3D: `WINE_D3D_CONFIG=renderer=vulkan wine StarCraft2.exe` -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #33 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- (In reply to Stian Low from comment #32)
(In reply to calmstorm from comment #31)
Actually, its not slower the 32GB max gpu support.
Its about the same, I didn't notice a difference for some reason. its very peculiar.
Thanks for clarifying.
Are you using EGL rendering?
I've been taking a closer look at the code and there seems to be mechanisms based on driver features for setting GPU memory and other resources.
Therefore my patch may have only been useful for fallback scenarios but it still seems to apply at least for for what in-game graphics menus report for GPU.
renderer=vulkan (DAMAVAND) may work for Starcraft 2 but often it has lower performance than default gl/WINED3D:
`WINE_D3D_CONFIG=renderer=vulkan wine StarCraft2.exe`
I might try that later, but I am not sure what to expect. but as for am I EGL rendering, I honestly don't know. Is that the default? Also, wondering if you have a system with similarity to i5-8250U + 620 uhd intel graphics. There is this map I play called Desert Strike 2 Legacy and on Expert mode 1 on 1, I tend to at most get no more FPS, beyond 100FPS. That is close to start of the match. But every so often it goes below like 10fps after round 20 and after round 30 its closer to less than 5fps It has these moments when it slows down that much. I don't know if the 32GB of ram being used to augment the video ram would help. And I also don't know IF in the current patch it is doing so. ITs possible its not or something else is afoot. Appreciate the help on some of this though. If you know the map I spoke of on Starcraft 2, and how to play it, I recommend playing one on one with someone and every so often looking at the FPS in tooltip on the right side. Maybe that would tell you if the speed I am getting is right or not. You'd have to have a similar computer though in speed though. In my case, its a laptop, Thinkpad T480 as i mentioned earlier. Good thing about it though is it does not overheat easily. Even when I compile with -j without a number and it reaches like 150. Dumb I know. but yeah, done all that before. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #34 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- Oh and the above comment I just pasted, my settings are on low in that too. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #35 from Stian Low <wineryyyyy@gmail.com> --- (In reply to calmstorm from comment #33)
I might try that later, but I am not sure what to expect. but as for am I EGL rendering, I honestly don't know. Is that the default?
Yes EGL has been default for a while and used when available unless disabled via registry. EGL (and vulkan equiv) seems to use auto-detect features via drivers to get much of what glxinfo/vulkaninfo reports. I'm testing with a Thinkpad with lower-end graphics handled by AMD Ryzen 7 7730U with Radeon Graphics. Noticable difference reported by my glxinfo vs yours is video and unified memory: Video memory: 1024MB Unified memory: no Not unified may indicate that my BIOS allows a specific range of RAM to be allocated/dedicated for display purposes which in your case may not be available because your memory is unified. Performance between GPUs that share RAM may vary but my system reports about 10 FPS higher for Witcher GOG when setting memory to 1 GB (auto default) vs 4 GB. Eariler when I said it would be counterintuitive if supporting more GPU memory caused less performance may only apply to GPU with dedicated memory. For GPUs that share RAM it may actually be the opposite in some cases where less RAM may narrow RAM access locality and lead to higher performance. It may vary across different devices and games and overall may be fairly negligible. All this to say that my patch may not have actually done much for you other than have your in-game display settings have more options which is unfortunate but at least it lead to some clarity about what may not be the problem. I'll continue testing and trying to improve performance unrelated to video memory. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #36 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- I used control + alt + f at the same time and just in the menu after logging into the game, I get like 61 FPS. I don't know if that makes sense or not, but I tend to doubt it for the reasons I gave before. IT should probably be 3x that amount. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #37 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- (In reply to calmstorm from comment #36)
I used control + alt + f at the same time and just in the menu after logging into the game, I get like 61 FPS.
I don't know if that makes sense or not, but I tend to doubt it for the reasons I gave before.
IT should probably be 3x that amount.
Btw, to add to this, I am currently using 1700MB. GPU is at 0C. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #38 from Stian Low <wineryyyyy@gmail.com> --- (In reply to calmstorm from comment #36)
IT should probably be 3x that amount.
If you can confirm 3x when running the same scenario for Windows then it would confirm a problem for Linux but still unclear if wine or mesa driver is at fault. Maybe wine could add capabilities/settings to allocate RAM for GPU purposes to provide what my BIOS/driver offers but that may better handled by mesa driver. For your unified memory scenario RAM may be allocated for graphics as needed during gameplay which may lead to fragmentation and reduced memory locality that deteriorates performance over time. Even with memory locality enforced via my BIOS/driver capability it seems some GPUs that share RAM may perform better by minimizing the range hence 1GB performing slightly better than 4GB in my case. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #39 from Stian Low <wineryyyyy@gmail.com> --- Red dead bug reporter who shares your GPU mentioned different results when overriding vram via HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/Wine/Direct3D/VideoMemorySize: - https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59008#c19 - https://support.codeweavers.com/en_US/manually-set-videomemorysize Unclear if it will make any difference for your performance but it at least fixes red dead crashing earlier than it eventually does later anyway. I'll take a closer look at how vram auto-detect calculus for GPUs with unified shared RAM is handled which may need adjustments. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #40 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- (In reply to Stian Low from comment #38)
(In reply to calmstorm from comment #36)
IT should probably be 3x that amount.
If you can confirm 3x when running the same scenario for Windows then it would confirm a problem for Linux but still unclear if wine or mesa driver is at fault.
Maybe wine could add capabilities/settings to allocate RAM for GPU purposes to provide what my BIOS/driver offers but that may better handled by mesa driver.
For your unified memory scenario RAM may be allocated for graphics as needed during gameplay which may lead to fragmentation and reduced memory locality that deteriorates performance over time.
Even with memory locality enforced via my BIOS/driver capability it seems some GPUs that share RAM may perform better by minimizing the range hence 1GB performing slightly better than 4GB in my case.
Problem is, I don't use windows. I also refuse to use windows 11. That mess of an OS makes my brain sick. Btw, I don't know if this helps you, but I have a nonstandard bios on my laptop called libreboot with intel me disabled. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #41 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- (In reply to Stian Low from comment #39)
Red dead bug reporter who shares your GPU mentioned different results when overriding vram via HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/Wine/Direct3D/VideoMemorySize:
- https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59008#c19 - https://support.codeweavers.com/en_US/manually-set-videomemorysize
Unclear if it will make any difference for your performance but it at least fixes red dead crashing earlier than it eventually does later anyway.
I'll take a closer look at how vram auto-detect calculus for GPUs with unified shared RAM is handled which may need adjustments.
Worth a try -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #42 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- this: `WINE_D3D_CONFIG=renderer=vulkan wine StarCraft2.exe` made my computer slower and it gave me a red screen for some reason. Very odd. Although I opened it via Battle.net.exe so I don't know if that makes a difference aka, it was like this: `WINE_D3D_CONFIG=renderer=vulkan wine Battle.net.exe` -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #43 from Stian Low <wineryyyyy@gmail.com> --- (In reply to calmstorm from comment #40)
Problem is, I don't use windows. I also refuse to use windows 11. That mess of an OS makes my brain sick.
I understand and only use Windows for Wine dev purposes. Emacs helps make OS diffs including Win11 fairly arbitrary.
I have a nonstandard bios on my laptop called libreboot with intel me disabled.
If it supports non-unified GPU RAM sharing for your card then it may be worth a try. Otherwise Wine supports partly emulating such features via regedit: HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/Wine/Direct3D/VideoMemorySize Otherwise performance gains may require changes other than memory handling for your GPU. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #44 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- (In reply to Stian Low from comment #43)
(In reply to calmstorm from comment #40)
Problem is, I don't use windows. I also refuse to use windows 11. That mess of an OS makes my brain sick.
I understand and only use Windows for Wine dev purposes. Emacs helps make OS diffs including Win11 fairly arbitrary.
I have a nonstandard bios on my laptop called libreboot with intel me disabled.
If it supports non-unified GPU RAM sharing for your card then it may be worth a try.
Otherwise Wine supports partly emulating such features via regedit:
HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/Wine/Direct3D/VideoMemorySize
Otherwise performance gains may require changes other than memory handling for your GPU.
Well regardless, I don't currently have a computer with windows on it. None currently anyways. Although I suppose I could risk it on my framework laptop if I had the attention span to bother with such a rancid system. I would still need a license key though. So... yeah. Its not really an option. But yeah, I will check that if I can remember how, -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #45 from Stian Low <wineryyyyy@gmail.com> --- (In reply to calmstorm from comment #44)
I would still need a license key though. So... yeah. Its not really an option.
I've never bought a Windows license. For the past few versions, Microsoft has offered a free version they seem to consider trial version. Other than a some disabled features like changing themes, it such as works well enough for tests to compare with wine. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows11 I've had trouble downloading from their page before however as they seem to try to make it less convenient sometimes depending on IP location or whether you are trying to download from a Linux machine. If downloading is not a problem then media installer typically works better than the iso which I've had issues with in the past which required some hacks/workarounds. (In reply to calmstorm from comment #44)
None currently anyways. Although I suppose I could risk it on my framework laptop
Preferably testing on the same system you are using for wine to get a performance comparison. If windows runs the game considerably better then it clearly indicates wine has a performance discrepancy. Otherwise it would clarify that your system has limitations beyond wine. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #46 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- (In reply to Stian Low from comment #45)
(In reply to calmstorm from comment #44)
I would still need a license key though. So... yeah. Its not really an option.
I've never bought a Windows license.
For the past few versions, Microsoft has offered a free version they seem to consider trial version.
Other than a some disabled features like changing themes, it such as works well enough for tests to compare with wine.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows11
I've had trouble downloading from their page before however as they seem to try to make it less convenient sometimes depending on IP location or whether you are trying to download from a Linux machine.
If downloading is not a problem then media installer typically works better than the iso which I've had issues with in the past which required some hacks/workarounds.
(In reply to calmstorm from comment #44)
None currently anyways. Although I suppose I could risk it on my framework laptop
Preferably testing on the same system you are using for wine to get a performance comparison.
If windows runs the game considerably better then it clearly indicates wine has a performance discrepancy. Otherwise it would clarify that your system has limitations beyond wine.
Do they also still offer 10? I would use that long before I used 11 if I had the choice... Also, I am not sure if I can install either even if I wanted to given my bios. I have a libreboot bios on most of my computers including the T480 I was using. Also, do you have a T480 with or without libreboot bios? If not, I dunno. I hope this isn't a problem any of this though. I am pretty sure though the error is on wine or at minimum linux. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #47 from calmstorm@posteo.de --- I will try it out next chance I find time/patience to do so with windows 10. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59186 --- Comment #48 from Stian Low <wineryyyyy@gmail.com> --- (In reply to calmstorm from comment #47)
I will try it out next chance I find time/patience to do so with windows 10.
Windows 10 also still seems available for download but it only gives ISO choice for my Linux machine: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download I have a Thinkpad with Lenovo BIOS and have never used libreboot so it may have compatibility problems with Windows. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
participants (1)
-
WineHQ Bugzilla