Recent testing revealed that Arch Linux, Pop!_OS, and even Nobara Linux, which is maintained by a single developer, all outstripped Windows for the performance crown on Windows-native games. The testing was run at the high-end of quality settings, and Valve's Proton was used to run Windows games on ...
The distribution "managed by a single person" depends on hundreds of people working on different sofware to keep up. It's not "one person doing better than the thousands of Microsoft employees combined" implication they are pushing
Windows 11 beat the linux distros by up to 20% in 1% lows which are argued as much more important by most tech reviewers. It wasn't consistant at all which means that there was a giant margin of error.
I love linux and linux gaming has gotten radically better, but I am tired of tech "journalism" literally just cherrypicking, misleading, clickbait trash.
Wait, isn't a lower frame time better? Why does their screenshot show windows having the lowest and say that it scored last?
Looking at the source article, windows did have generally better 1% lows except for Starfield, so I think this article has it backwards. They also cherry picked 2 results where windows was worse lol.
I'm all for pro-linux stuff but articles like this just reek of making shit up so it looks better.
If you want to game, stick to regular Fedora. A project that is actually secure is ublue with dedicated NVIDIA images that should just work and never break, and they even have Bazzite, an Image specifically for the Steamdeck but also for Desktop.
These images are only ½ day behind upstream, apply minimal additions and patches (like drivers, codecs, packages, udev rules for controllers) and Nick from the video above found out that the Nobara patches with their weird less supported Kernel arent really worth the hassle.
I’ll need to give Linux gaming another chance at some point.
All I know is that people were saying games run great on Linux a couple of years ago as well, but when I actually tried it for myself the performance was unusable.
Maybe that was my fault for over complicating my setup, but even when I tried a basic setup it still felt very janky.
Not sure if anyone’s able to advise, but does RTX and variable refresh rate work on Linux?
A typical Linux distro, especially lightweight and simpler ones like Arch, will of course be better than a bloated OS, like Pop or Windows. The only problem with Linux distros might be the choice of tools - X and AMD will work much better overall than Wayland and Nvidia.
Just that many people may have an Nvidia GPU before deciding to use Linux, and some people just prefer to use Wayland over X for literally everything else.
My PC with Wayland + Nvidia has so many problems with gaming, especially flickering and performance, while my Laptop with Wayland + integrated Intel graphics has no problems at all - even in games, that I wonder if Nvidia + Wayland still really sucks ass or if my GPU is just broken. Currently there's a bug where frames are 'switched' somehow, so it's not Frame 1, Frame 2, ... Frame n, but Frame 1, Frame 3, Frame 2, Frame 5, Frame 6, Frame 4 etc.
I expect it to be fixed by an update of nvidia in the future, but there are always such bugs.
Real question- I have a steam deck and am incredibly pleased with the playability. I also have a desktop with a newer nvidia card. Does Linux have support for DLSS yet? It make a huge difference in oerformance and honestly it’s the only thing holding me back
For whatever reason, Windows 11 is worse at Cyberpunk 2077 than Arch for me. Constant stuttering. It might be that Arch has much less going on than Windows, but it's enough for me to use Linux as my main gaming OS now.
I’d love to see a similar test but with mid-tier and low-tier hardware.
I did a similar test with RDR2 a little while back on Pop!_OS and Windows 11 (dual boot). Average FPS was within margin of error but minimum FPS on Windows was better by about 20 FPS.