Cyberpunk runs 30% faster on linux than on windows 11
Cyberpunk runs 30% faster on linux than on windows 11
Cyberpunk 2077 2.0 Update: Phantom Liberty performance tested across Windows and Nobara OS.Video Timeline:00:00 - In Game Settings on Windows 11.00:33 - In G...
The YouTube channel "Maximum Fury" conducted a technical test of the new Cyberpunk add-on called "Phantom Liberty" on an older AMD hardware system, testing it separately on Linux and Windows 11. The Linux system, specifically the Fedora distribution called Nobara, performed significantly better, delivering 31% more frames compared to Windows 11.
The hardware used for testing included an Asrock B550 motherboard with an AMD Ryzen 5 5600 CPU and an AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT GPU from the first RDNA generation, along with 16 GB of DDR4 RAM. The CPU, RAM, and GPU were overclocked, and the system utilized undervolting to save energy costs.
When testing the game at 1080p resolution with high textures, the Linux system achieved an average of 63.72 frames per second (fps), while Windows 11 managed only 48.55 fps. This suggests that the game should run noticeably smoother on the Linux system.
You're viewing a single thread.
It's a well known fact that every second major release of Windows is crap.
- Windows 95 was not the best.
- Windows 95OSR2 was the one you wanted.
- Windows 98 sucked.
- Windows 98 2nd ed. worked as the former should have.
- Windows 2000 was great but had no support for running games.
- XP solved that and made people leave Windows 98 (I deliberately left out the clusterf... Windows ME.).
- Windows Vista sucked balls.
- Windows 7 was what Vista should have been.
- Windows 8? Metro on phones, yes! On desktop? No no no.
- Windows 10 got Microsoft back on track again.
I thought the new upgrade scheme (2 editions per year) Microsoft introduced with Windows 10 would be like "every second release will suck" but it started to look like Microsoft were able to break the curse....
...and then Windows 11 happened.
casusally skipping millenium edition because most people opted to buy windows 2000, the enterprise server os instead.
Windows 2000 couldn't run games because it was based on Windows NT and the NT Kernel. ME was still based on DOS. XP frankensteined the NT Kernel and DOS to somehow make the most stable, longest running and best windows ever.
And 20 years later they're bleeding marketshare.
Windows 2000 could run games (I should know: I kept being a gamer whilst using it for years) but in the early days with so many games designed for DOS that required direct low level access it was a problem. If I remember it correct one had to boot in DOS mode for those.
Eventually with DirectX that stopped being a problem (plus, again if I remember it correctly, OpenGL also became compatible with it).
I ran 2000 back in the day and didn't really have any problems with it. IMO it breaks the pattern somewhat. XP was better, of course, but 2000 was a good OS.
I still game using Windows 2000 on a Pentium 3 Tualatin based system.
All my retro games run no problem, Tiberian Sun is the shite.
W2k was awesome. Great stability. However, the legacy from Windows NT meant that applications had no direct access to hardware which games of that time required.
That was a showstopper for most users outside the enterprise world.
I am not gonna disagree with you, but I remember playing half-life on it with no problems. Of course, you couldn't play DOS games on it, if that's what you mean.
You know what? I never had issues with ME, it actually worked quite well for what I did, which was a lot of gaming.