All three Linux distros managed to beat Windows 11 while using Vavle's Proton compatibility layer.

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.

  • entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    21·
    1 year ago

    If Valve made a Linux OS… or even at the very least started making honest proposals at unifying how the OS ran, so that their efforts in getting gaming to work on it could be more widely productive; we could see a radical shift in adoption.

    Sorry, does SteamOS 3 not count? Is Valve’s massive investment in Mesa, Wine, Wayland (HDR, Gamescope, etc) not exactly what you’re talking about? I feel like we’re living in parallel dimensions or something lol

    • LUHG@lemmy.worldEnglish
      61·
      1 year ago

      Yh it does count although it only supports a certain set of hardware. Not entirely sure if that’s true though.

      • fartsparkles@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        111·
        1 year ago

        Yes but the improvements and contributing Valve made to various packages in the Linux ecosystem and the kernel were all pushed upstream meaning any Linux distribution can benefit from them.

    • thantik@lemmy.worldEnglish
      48·
      1 year ago

      Aren’t all of these things basically out-of-band investments? They didn’t recontribute upstream to these projects from what I understand, but they made their own forks and developed on those - or those projects have scurried to backport the changes Valve has made, simply being lucky enough that the licenses required them to remain open so the changes could be pulled backwards into public projects.

      SteamOS is not a General Purpose OS. It is a hardware-specific Linux fork of Arch. Not the same thing.

      So while yes, Valve has used Linux quite gracefully for their ends; my point was that if they acted more as an orchestrator and guided the community in the general OS space, they would be good stewards for doing so.

      Valve didn’t invest in Wine. They forked it, called it Proton, developed that, and Wine can only benefit if they scurry and ‘chase’ the changes in Proton. There’s nothing wrong with that - but it’s hardly conducive to improving existing projects.

      • Hinrik@lemmy.worldEnglish
        22·
        1 year ago

        Aren’t all of these things basically out-of-band investments? They didn’t recontribute upstream to these projects from what I understand

        Maintaining a fork is not mutually exclusive with contributing changes upstream. Valve’s policy is to upstream everything.

      • fartsparkles@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        101·
        1 year ago

        So many errors in what you’ve said. Valve made Proton with the developers from CodeWeavers who make Wine, quite literally investing in the developers and development of Wine itself. And given Valve upstream everything, your comments about forking, back porting, etc are quite ill informed.

        • thantik@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          1 year ago

          That’s why they were posed as questions, and not statements. And I also quite clearly stated that my understanding may have been wrong.