Performance Comparison for WINE Users

Let's see how many threads I can start in the first 20 minutes.

Anyone who's running SL on WINE already, please post a comparative performance analysis between running under WINE and running the alpha client. Clientside FPS looking at the same scene would be useful, as well as general impressions of client behaviour and speed. It should be interesting to see if there's a noticable difference or not. I'll be posting mine tonight after I play with it a bit.

If there's not, I wonder if that's a testament to the work of the WINE developers or a statement about how Linux SL is implemented. I'd be interested in hearing from some of the developers on this forum about the implementation of SL on Linux.

It is a different world Karsten, it really is.
I haven't compared directly yet, but it is a much better experience now.

I will try to go back to a club later to see how it works there
-> runs back to SL

much more responsive...about 16 fps (linux) instead of 8 fps (wine) @ 1024x768

I seem to be getting a pretty decent FPS increase, on the order of 8-10 FPS just from initial tinkering. I'll play around with it more solidly in a bit.

Please make sure you're running at the same resolution for a fair comparison. I know that the window size under WINE can make quite a bit of difference for me.

Judging from the few seconds in which I can get the Linux SL to not crash, though, it does seem fairly snappy.

I'm seeing around 9 fps with the new client, under Wine I was getting 3 - 5 in a 800x600 window.

Either way it should really be higher, I'm running
AMD XP 2000+
nVidia 6600 GT
1 GB RAM

1592x642

Wine: 2FPS
Linux: 4FPS

XP2000+ GF6600 w/ 256mb Gentoo. I've replaced all the shipped libs with symlinks to the ones in /usr/lib, with the exception of libSDL as it crashes if I do that.

How come your frame rate has been so low? I've used SL under wine for some time in 1280x960 window and I bet my frame rate has been quite a lot of higher than yours is although my machine isn't that different: Gentoo linux 2.6.15-r1, AMD XP 2400+, nVidia 5700fx, 1GB RAM. Which nVidia drivers are you using?

Now I'm just trying the linux client for the first time and I don't think it runs that much faster and there are definitely some problems... though I'm happy that LL is making progress.

I think he has the same problem as I do, what with running the same spec pretty much.

SL is CPU bound on this kind of system. An overclock that increased my overall speed by 100MHz made a noticeable difference.

I'm looking into a faster Athlon XP in the next few months to further stave off the time when I actually have to build a new system.

I now have most options on, ripple water too, bump & cloth on avs, window "fullscreen" 1152 x whatever, draw distance 256, cuttoff at 5 fps etc, only the AGP option won't stick and I am not sure of my 128 MB graphics memory being fully used (Help, About SL says I have 1 MB od system memory, too), and though the speeds are comparable, my draw distance is WAY higher (as seen on mini map - even 512 is stable, and fps stays above 5), as is "first rez" in a new area.

Wine and windows were about the same as each other; SL Linux has definite performance advantages. BUT rezzing of some objects never happens (especially trees); texture cache gets emptied very fast.

I reserve final judgement until its working comparably to the windows version I also use. It does look very promising, though. I regularly get framerates above 15, unheard of under wine or windows

------------------------------------

Edit: P.S. on graphic features

Ripple water is not effective. It is on, but no ripple water.

The AGP option does not stick; my kernel is using AGPART and not AGP, maybe that is why. It gets removed from the settings.ini as soon as I change anything.

A test in the most laggy area of Cosy Home (Very Foggy, with particle fog) gave me the following lowest values:

Windows: 2.7 fps

Wine: 2.1 fps

Linux: 3.6 fps.

I actually thought Wine was quicker that Windows; not in this test.

Linux has no ripple water, which does cause lag, and so on. So I still reserve final judgement

Last night after setitng up my client I did a quick and dirty comparison.
First off: AMD XP 1700+, 512 megs Dual Channel DDR, 128mb fx5200
I'm running Kubuntu 5.10, breezy badger, kernel 2.6.12-10, compiled for 386
OpenGL v. 2.0.0

Looking at a group of 3 dancing furs with some particle effects:
13fps under Cedega, 16~17fps native

after a night's sleep:

Rendering 6 dancing furs in a club with some particle effects:
8.9 to 9.4fps in cedega, ~10.4fps native

Rendering 6 dancing furs in a club with sky, particle, and cloud rendering turned off:
10.0fps cedega, 13.0fps native

rendering time of a club with 4 furs in it:
50 seconds under cedega, 47 seconds native (No difference within margin of error)

Textures under cedega are smoother and more complete, while they appear to not fully load under native, but when they do fully load under native, it's purtier, yup.
Native thus far has been more stable than cedega

I made sure all settings were equal between the two clients before running these tests, and turned off sound under cedega.