Re: Wine vs. Cedega in Benchmarks
On 12/04/07, Tom Wickline [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Wine vs. Cedega in Benchmarks
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. macos low macos high linux low linux high 1 407 135 207 91 2 265 108 264 182 3 468 212 285 125 4 5 429 166 309 97 6 525 201 409 92 7 169 118 238 72 8 242 148 156 96 9 260 91 192 78 10 211 76 178 66 11 248 102 96 84 low: 640x480 high: 1380x850 2: wavy face 3: mountain face 4: OpenGL logo explosion 5: first tunnel 6: another tunnel with futuristic flying objects 7: glass cubes 8: water, moon and sun 9: waterfall 10: lasers 11: Final scene with credits Runs with winelib: macos low macos high linux low linux high 1 390 134 161 122 2 115 115 138 138 3 313 167 237 119 4 5 311 162 239 85 6 417 200 375 95 7 93 93 235 94 8 119 118 155 142 9 259 92 196 77 10 206 73 172 65 11 147 103 79 pgp0ONu6GzuAE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Wine vs. Cedega in Benchmarks
On 4/12/07, Stefan Dösinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 Respectable computing - Linux/FOSS
Re: Wine vs. Cedega in Benchmarks
Tom Wickline napsal(a): On 4/12/07, Stefan Dösinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: Wine vs. Cedega in Benchmarks
Am Donnerstag 12 April 2007 16:22 schrieb Tom Wickline: On 4/12/07, Stefan Dösinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 pgp2MaHvPrNyB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Wine vs. Cedega in Benchmarks
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. pgpImgJCqPI18.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Wine vs. Cedega in Benchmarks
On 4/12/07, Stefan Dösinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.html and put the results in a table as sample works or not. -- Tom Wickline Respectable computing - Linux/FOSS
Re: Wine vs. Cedega in Benchmarks
On 4/12/07, Stefan Dösinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess some hl2 timedemos may be good too Was this what you had in mind? : http://www.hocbench.com/hl2.html -- Tom Wickline Respectable computing - Linux/FOSS
Re: Wine vs. Cedega in Benchmarks
On 4/12/07, Tom Wickline [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Performance Mark 5.0 Lets kick in 6.1 as well. http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.6?action=AttachFiledo=gettarget=PerformanceTest6.1.png -- Tom Wickline Respectable computing - Linux/FOSS
Re: Wine vs. Cedega in Benchmarks
Am Donnerstag 12 April 2007 16:57 schrieb Tom Wickline: On 4/12/07, Stefan Dösinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. pgp6zhVBFVSXv.pgp Description: PGP signature
