501
Three gaming-focused Linux operating systems beat Windows 11 in gaming benchmarks (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/linux_gaming@lemmy.world
149 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Nobara OS, Arch Linux and Pop!_OS beat Windows 11 by a slim margin in fps (delta 8) in Windows native games - Cyberpunk 2077, Forspoken, Starfield and The Talos Principle II. Windows 11 wins in Rachet & Clank.

ComputerBase's testing was done on an all-AMD test rig, featuring a Ryzen 7 5800X (non-3D) and a Radeon RX 6700 XT.

Update: Windows 11 wins in one game.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Does it really matter? The majority buy Nvidia due to mindshare, the same probably goes for why they use Windows.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Nvidia has been so far ahead of AMD cards for so long, and running AI stuff on them is a much better experience as well.

    I love AMD and wished it weren't so, but buying an AMD video card can only be justified by price or Linux compatibility.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Yeah I have been having so much trouble running AI stuff on my Rx 6700 XT that I use my media computer with a RTX 2060 to do most of my experimenting with though the VRAM is really limiting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I've forgotten which generation but the last time AMD had the better card most people still bought Nvidia.

    I only dislike AMD significantly less than Nvidia. Give me friendly company with non-proprietary drivers and I'd consider that even if it wasn't "the best".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The majority buys NVIDIA, because NVIDIA cards are just better.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    At least in terms of the latest features, like RTX. If you're only interested in raster performance, AMD works quite well and provides excellent value.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Not just the latest features. NVENC is better for both streaming and untethered VR, CUDA is usually better supported by photo/video/3D/CAD software, etc. AMD is only good if you're only playing games and can't afford an NVIDIA card.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Or you're like me and use Linux and value better drivers (e.g. Wayland support, no update bugs on rolling release distros, etc) over those other features.

    And on Windows as well, if you're buying mid-range, you're probably not going to have a good experience with those other features, so you should go with AMD. The premium for buying Nvidia at the mid-range often isn't worth it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Well, I don't buy midrange, personally. As I tend to use my GPU for hobbies and work, I tend to buy the best thing available on the market.

    And even when I play games, I play in 4K exclusively, for the past seven years :)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    Then I guess you and I are very different people.

    I also use my GPU for hobbies and work. My hobbies are game dev (nothing hardcore GPU-wise, just some mid-poly modeling), gaming (mostly indie, though occasionally SP AAA), and random SW-dev projects (e.g. I'm building a Lemmy/Reddit clone). For work, I'm a full-stack web dev and don't do CUDA work (and I have a separate work-provided laptop), just occasionally run renders of things (mostly web-based three.js stuff). So for me personally, I'd only really see a benefit for running some of the latest games, which is incredibly rare since I honestly don't have a ton of time to keep up with things (e.g. I'm finally starting RDR2 after owning it for years). I game in 1440p, and most games don't tax my GPU (RX 6650XT). If I need CUDA, I'll just rent space on AWS or something instead of running it locally.

    So I care a lot more about Wayland support (I have monitors with different refresh rates) and driver stability (I run a rolling release, and Nvidia causes issues at least a few times/year) than top tier performance or latest features. I've been on Linux longer than Steam has, and I've honestly only been playing more games because Valve has made it so easy. For me, Linux comes first, gaming second, and AMD provides a high quality product for my use case. I used to use Nvidia because ATI used to be worse on Linux, if you can believe that, but I upgraded after COVID because Wayland got quite stable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent