Hello All,
I have been pondering the thoughts of running every benchmark that I have on Wine, Cedega, XP, and CX to see where we stack up in the performance game.
And while doing my daily reading of news sites I came across this posted on /.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=681&num=1
Those guys ran 5 game test and Wine's performance is clearly superior to that of Cedega on benchmarks where Wine was run, they give no details of the Wine configuration, So I can only presume it's a default setup. And since there *trying* to paint the best picture possible for Cedega they don't point out that Wine is superior!
"It is also important to note that there were minimal performance differences between WINE 0.9.32 and Cedega 6.0. Granted there are only five benchmarks in this Cedega 6.0 performance preview, but the level of performance for Cedega does look extremely promising and we will continue to look at Cedega 6.0 and report back in future articles."
Should read : Cedega's performance is currently lagging that of Wine 0.9.32 and with each Wine release Wine's performance and feature set is continuously improving!
I'm open for thoughts and suggestions....
On 12/04/07, Tom Wickline twickline@gmail.com wrote:
Those guys ran 5 game test and Wine's performance is clearly superior to that of Cedega on benchmarks where Wine was run, they give no details of the Wine configuration, So I can only presume it's a default setup. And since there *trying* to paint the best picture possible for Cedega they don't point out that Wine is superior!
"It is also important to note that there were minimal performance differences between WINE 0.9.32 and Cedega 6.0. Granted there are only five benchmarks in this Cedega 6.0 performance preview, but the level of performance for Cedega does look extremely promising and we will continue to look at Cedega 6.0 and report back in future articles."
Should read : Cedega's performance is currently lagging that of Wine 0.9.32 and with each Wine release Wine's performance and feature set is continuously improving!
I'm open for thoughts and suggestions....
Tbh, I don't think an OpenGL performance comparison is particularly interesting in the first place.
Tbh, I don't think an OpenGL performance comparison is particularly interesting in the first place.
Though the interesting thing is that I did my own native Linux vs native MacOS vs Wine benchmarks with glExcess a few days ago. I got pretty much the opposite result. Granted, my benchmarking code was very primitive, so read the results as +/- 10 fps, and this was on fglrx. But I got remarkable differences between wine and native, with native beeing up to 2 times faster.
Out of interest I did a quick check on nvidia. The difference smaller, but there too(990 vs 1100 fps in the first glExcess scene at 640x480). Still a ~10% difference.
I also tested winelib vs PE .exe(with msvc6) and found no difference(That was 990(winelib) vs 980(PE)). The small differences could be because of my shitty benchmark code or because of compiler differences.
But I agree with Henri that a Direct3D performance comparison will be much more interesting.
On 4/12/07, Stefan Dösinger stefan@codeweavers.com wrote:
But I agree with Henri that a Direct3D performance comparison will be much more interesting.
Well were all three in agreement, I believe a well rounded benchmark review is in order ;)
Some test software:
Disk I/O Memory: Performance Mark 5.0 PCMark 04
D3D: Aquamark 3 3DMark 2000 3DMark 2001SE 3DMark 2003 3DMark 2005 3DMark 2006
OpenGL: Dronezmark GLExcess
suggestions anyone?
Tom Wickline napsal(a):
On 4/12/07, Stefan Dösinger stefan@codeweavers.com wrote:
But I agree with Henri that a Direct3D performance comparison will be much more interesting.
Well were all three in agreement, I believe a well rounded benchmark review is in order ;)
Some test software:
Disk I/O Memory: Performance Mark 5.0 PCMark 04
D3D: Aquamark 3 3DMark 2000 3DMark 2001SE 3DMark 2003 3DMark 2005 3DMark 2006
Nvidia SDK D3D Demos?
OpenGL: Dronezmark GLExcess
Nvidia SDK OpenGL Demos?
suggestions anyone?
I have Cedega 6 installed, but I can't run 3DMark 2001, 2003 or 2006, so I can't compare performance. Cedega 6 only support Pixel and Vertex shaders 2.0!
Mirek
Nvidia SDK D3D Demos? Nvidia SDK OpenGL Demos?
I don't think SDK demos are good performance benchmarks for overall performance. They can find bottlenecks, but not predict how good something is for games.
They could show which features work in Wine / Cedega, but I think that would be unfair to Cedega, because I assume that Transgaming is putting efforts into real games, not SDK demos. And in the end, the average user plays games instead of running sdk demos all the day. So if Cedega fails in all sdk demos that doesn't make it any worse for users.
On 4/12/07, Stefan Dösinger stefandoesinger@gmx.at wrote:
Nvidia SDK D3D Demos? Nvidia SDK OpenGL Demos?
I don't think SDK demos are good performance benchmarks for overall performance. They can find bottlenecks, but not predict how good something is for games.
They could show which features work in Wine / Cedega
Unfair???? Have you ever read there propaganda news letter? of all the features they support.. of just how green the grass is over there ;)
Ill download and install everything that i can from here: http://http.download.nvidia.com/developer/SDK/Individual_Samples/samples.htm... and put the results in a table as sample works or not.
Am Donnerstag 12 April 2007 16:57 schrieb Tom Wickline:
On 4/12/07, Stefan Dösinger stefandoesinger@gmx.at wrote:
Nvidia SDK D3D Demos? Nvidia SDK OpenGL Demos?
I don't think SDK demos are good performance benchmarks for overall performance. They can find bottlenecks, but not predict how good something is for games.
They could show which features work in Wine / Cedega
Unfair???? Have you ever read there propaganda news letter? of all the features they support.. of just how green the grass is over there ;)
Does that mean we have to do the same?
They claim the grass is green as far as games are related. They do not sell cedega as a tool to run sdk demos. Otherwise we may say Wine is better for gaming because it runs Microsoft Office 2003 and thus VBA games will work. We should only compare the functionality Transgaming advertizes in my opinion.
Am Donnerstag 12 April 2007 16:22 schrieb Tom Wickline:
On 4/12/07, Stefan Dösinger stefan@codeweavers.com wrote:
But I agree with Henri that a Direct3D performance comparison will be much more interesting.
Well were all three in agreement, I believe a well rounded benchmark review is in order ;)
Some test software:
Disk I/O Memory: Performance Mark 5.0 PCMark 04
D3D: Aquamark 3 3DMark 2000 3DMark 2001SE 3DMark 2003 3DMark 2005 3DMark 2006
OpenGL: Dronezmark GLExcess
suggestions anyone?
I guess some hl2 timedemos may be good too
On 4/12/07, Stefan Dösinger stefan@codeweavers.com wrote:
I guess some hl2 timedemos may be good too
Was this what you had in mind? : http://www.hocbench.com/hl2.html
Am Donnerstag 12 April 2007 17:01 schrieb Tom Wickline:
On 4/12/07, Stefan Dösinger stefan@codeweavers.com wrote:
I guess some hl2 timedemos may be good too
Was this what you had in mind? : http://www.hocbench.com/hl2.html
I don't think we need anything that complex really. I think just a normal timedemo will be enough, at recorded resolution, dxlevel and settings. I have some recorded for my personal comparions, you may use them if you want to, but you can of course record your own or fetch some from gaming magazines if they are free to use.
http://stud4.tuwien.ac.at/%7Ee0526822/breen.dem.bz2 http://stud4.tuwien.ac.at/%7Ee0526822/mydemo.dem.bz2
Both have the problem that they do not render any water - Thus you may want to record another demo in some d1_canals_XX maps. But if you can get a publically available timedemo which was recorded for testing with windows without Linux in mind it may be best I guess.
On 4/12/07, Tom Wickline twickline@gmail.com wrote:
Performance Mark 5.0
Lets kick in 6.1 as well..... http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.6?action=AttachFile&do=get&targ...
-
H. Verbeet -
Mirek -
Stefan Dösinger -
Stefan Dösinger -
Tom Wickline