Worse gaming performance than Kubuntu 12.10?

Title.
I'm using KDE 4.10 (installed kdebase package), Pulse, nVidia propietary drivers with VSync disabled, same programs than on Kubuntu, compositing manually suspended, yet performance is worse on TF2 and Serious Sam 3: BFE. FPS is high... enough, but the games stutter every few seconds, making them extremely annoying to play.
Any ideas why this happens?
And no, nothing strange on the console output.
Not using a low latency kernel on Kubuntu, nor will I use one on Arch. Plus, according to Phoronix benchmarks, those usually reduce gaming performance.
Thanks in advance for any help.

frank604 wrote:
Have you compared processes/services between arch and kubuntu? Could you monitor cpu for spikes and see if any background processes is causing the stutter?
when you say nothing useful is output to console do you mean you are running 'steam' command in terminal and watching the output there?
Any cpu frequency scaling?
Double check the archwiki at https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ga … g_policies
Special highlight to core affinity and schedule daemon/policy.
Sorry I'm not much help, just doing some "what ifs" with you.
Compared to my laptops' Kubuntu 12.10 (I don't have Kubuntu installed anymore on my main machine) the only extra thing I had was Akonadi since I forgot to disable it. Disabled everything, file indexing, plus a couple of stuff I found I didn't need. No change in performance.
Yup, running steam into terminal. Games launched by steam output on there too.
CPU's not scaling, it's a regular Phenom II X2 on a desktop and nothing's wrong on BIOS.
I did not need to do any scheduling on Kubuntu for the game to run. I am not aware of Kubuntu using some sort of daemon that does that automatically, if there is, I'll install it, but ferk no I will not mess with it for every game I want to play. This is a global issue, plus I've tried running TF2 with multiple multithreading settings and that didn't do anything (plus on Kubuntu I had it set up to use my cores on the most efficient way, and I'm on the same settings on Arch).
Thanks.

Similar Messages

Late 2011 Macbook Pro - worse graphics performance than early 2011?

As per Apple.com:
Apple's Late 2011 MBP 15" claim 2X graphics performance as per Apple's tests from the last Nvidia based MBPs.
Apple's Early 2011 MBP 15" claimed 3X graphics performance as per Apple's (seemingly identical) tests from the last Nvidia based MBPs.
http://imgur.com/lAvek
Can anyone at Apple or otherwise comment on this?
Specifically, It seems the Half Life 2 test drop sfrom X3 to X2 on the Late 2011 model, even though it has the 6770 AMD card in it.
-Did Lion kill performance?
-Did Apple downclock the chips after reveiwers (anandtech??) found that while using discreet graphics battery performance dropped to roughly 2.5 hours?

Luke Heemsbergen wrote:
....the Half Life 2 test
-Did Lion kill performance?
It's likely the Half Life test is not compatible with Lion, nor is older 3D games.
If you want to use a test, use a more neutral test like Cinebench, GeekBench etc.
Or simply visit Barefeats and they will tell you
http://www.barefeats.com/
Remember programs are always in a state of having to be updated for the newer hardware and operating systems.

The problem with the gaming performance

i am usin hp 15-g206ax notebook and it have a quadcore processor and 4gb ram and a 2gb graphic card but its gaming performance is not good Please tell me what i can do for improving the gaming performance

There is not much to be done. You have the AMD HD 8570M graphics with dedicated video memory. That is in the lower middle of the spectrum as far as gaming is concerned. Way better than most laptops but way less powerful than a true gaming machine. Just keep the drivers current is about all. Turn down visual effects. There is no upgrade possible for the hardware.

Unreasonably low gaming performance, reasonably stout machine

I have heard plenty of people having problems with their computers in regards to gaming but I wanted to see if anything has been figured out.
My specs are:
27" iMac Core i7 (mid-2011 model)
3.4ghz
quad core
8gb ram
768gb HD partition, 250gb free
AMD Radeon HD 6970M, 2gb video memory
When I first got this computer it was a fantastic gaming computer even when running OS X. When I first installed Diablo III on it I was getting between 40-60fps easily. Borderlands 2 was smooth as silk in the highest settings and at native resolution.
A year or so passed and I started gaming on the PC side with games that weren't available on the Mac. I started noticing that my gaming performance really seemed to lag behind the PC side. I booted up Borderlands 2 and now at the same settings as before it is unplayable. I estimate no more than 10fps. Diablo III is getting 6-8fps. On the PC side Diablo is getting a solid 60fps with max settings.
It's obviously not the computer hardware itself. Something changed between August of 2012 when I received this computer and now. I believe the computer came installed with Mountain Lion (10.8) and I followed up the next year by installing Mavericks (10.9). I did a clean install of Yosemite the other day and I am STILL having problems. I am at my wits end. This is the first time in 25 years (Apple IIgs was first) of owning Apple products where I am not able to rectify my own problems and honestly, my PC partition has yet to give me any problems so it is making me feel like I made a mistake buying a Mac.
I realize the Mac isn't as good of a gaming computer as a PC... I get that. But when a game is working fine one day and a year later is unplayable... GRRRR.
I am open to ideas.
Model Identifier: iMac12,

Thanks but I read that in several places already.
I stated that I had this problem in Mavericks as well. Working on downloading the Mavericks installer and I'm going to try a wipe and install (of mavericks) to see if that fixes it.

Low ping yet online gaming performs poorly

This has always been an issue with my BT ADSL connection. On paper it looks perfect for gaming; a solid ~23ms ping to UK servers (FastPath) with practically no jitter, a constant 4.5/0.25 mbps throughput yet online gaming (Xbox Live) shows way more lag than the ping figures would suggest, it's pretty poor.
Any suggestions as to why this could be? It's as if either my hardware (HomeHub4) or BTs network has a very low priority for gaming traffic (I game mainly during peak hours, as do most people I expect)
I'm currently testing a non BT router to see if the issue lies with the Home Hub. It's definitely looking better so far gaming wise (will need to test more though) but actual web browsing is noticeably slower with the same speedtest/ping results!?
All other hardware is removed from the network, cable to the Xbox has been swapped. Gaming performance is my primary concern and the BT connection is almost putting a stop my enjoyment of online play.
My exhange is Infinitiy enabled but my cabinet not and seemingly no way to find out when it will be.

The current BT homehub which is Homehub3 is a very poor router in my opinion but I dont have any issues with online gaming when my connection works correctly.
Can you go to http://speedtester.bt.com/ and do a speed test
Also go http://192.168.1.254
then go to settings, advanced, broadband then connection and copy and paste the ADSL connection information here.

Will insert (ignore duplicates) have a better performance than merge?

Will insert (ignore duplicates) have a better performance than merge (insert if not duplicate)?

Ok. Here is exactly what is happenning -
We had a table with no unique index on it. We used 'insert all' statement to insert record.
But later when we found duplicates in there we started removing them manually.
Now, to resolve the issue we added unique index and added exception handling to ignore DUP_VAL_ON_INDEX exception.
But with this all records being inserted by 'INSERT ALL' statement gets ignored even if only one record is duplicate.
Hence we have finally replaced 'insert all' with merge statement. Which inserts only if a corresponding record is not found (match based on column in unique index) in the table.
But I am wondering how much performance will get impacted.

Mountain lion is better in performance than the snow leopard in macbook pro mid 2009? Can anyone tell me your experience?

Mountain Lion is better in performance than Snow Leopard in macbook pro mid 2009? Can anyone tell me your experience?

They are probably about the same based on benchmarks.

Better gaming performance upgrading from 2gig to 4gig?

Hi all,
Just wondering what you think about upgrading from 2gig to 4gig to increase gaming performance? I've a MBP 2.2ghz 128mb VRAM with 2gig of RAM and thinking about upgrading to 4gig. Will I see a decent increase in frame rates for games from my current system? Or is the 128mb VRAM going to be the only factor?
Cheers:)

I dont think it would hurt. Nothing but good things could come from having more memory. 4gb is a bit overkill though for most programs and games available at the moment.
I do think that your videocard would bottleneck any potential gains you would see from more memory. But I think the extra memory can help alittle... not really that much better, but alittle better.

Slow gaming performance on Satellite Pro C660-2C7

So my games run slow on C660-2C7 my video card is ATI mobility radeon hd 5470.
Can I do something ? I tried the site canyourunit which says if u can or cannot and on Assassins creed revelations says that I can run it but once ingame it goes really slow
null

Well, not quite sure what games you are trying to play but require to read some articles about the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5470. for example this:
+Due to the higher clock rate (and GDDR5 support), the 3D gaming performance should be above the HD 4570 (predecessor with same TDP range). Therefore, all current games should be playable in low-medium details. Demanding games, like *Crysis, NFS Shift, or Modern Warfare ran on the HD 4570 for example only in low detail settings fluently.* Less demanding games like Left 4 Dead should run in high detail settings.+
http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-5470.23698.0.html
So it depends always on the game and the requirements to the hardware

Gaming Performance with New MacBook

Hey I am going to buy the new macbook soon I think and I had a few questions corresponding to gaming performance with the MacBook, in particular running AmericasArmyOperations with bootcamp and windows xp.
I currently have the last years model 20" iMac 2.4GHz processor with 4GB ram. I run the game smoothly at full graphics and get over 60fps with all settings turned up. I think 60 is the max you can get because it wont move above it, yet never really goes under either.
Does any1 know the performance abilities of the new MacBooks and the new video cards? Will I need the 2.4GHz MacBook or will the 2.0GHz and 4GB of upgraded ram be sufficient? I don't need to run the game at full details, just enough to get like 20-30 fps on the lowest settings. Do you think the new MacBooks can run it? I know the MBP can do it for sure, just curious if I can opt for a cheaper solution of only 1200$

i dont know anything about fps but i can tell you i bought the 2.0 processor aluminum macbook and i play the following games in BOOTCAMP:
-gears of war
-fifa 09
-pes 09
-scarface
-need for speed undercover
-call of duty 5
all of those run at full graphics except cod 5 it runs on medium/low

Brand new MSI GE70 major gaming performance issues

Hello.
I bought an MSI GE70-2OD notebook
CPU: i7-4700MQ
GPU: GTX760M/2 GB GDDR5
RAM: DDRIII(L) 8
OS:Windows Ultimate SP1
I have a very weak gaming performance! Ive downloaded all of the drivers on the MSI site and installed them, still I got in Assassins Creed IV around 25-35 fps 1920x1080 resolution all other settings on MINIMUM (off)
The prob. might be with my Nvidia driver, since the MSI afterburner cant recognize its driver version...after I unistalled my graphic driver (several times) I ve tried the Nvidias auto detect option on their official site and it said that it couldnt find any graphics card.
I paid a lot of money for this notebook it would be a shame if it were for nothing, cuz that is what I get from it right now

Quote from: lypo119 on 14-February-14, 01:36:33
Hello.
I bought an MSI GE70-2OD notebook
CPU: i7-4700MQ
GPU: GTX760M/2 GB GDDR5
RAM: DDRIII(L) 8
OS:Windows Ultimate SP1
I have a very weak gaming performance! Ive downloaded all of the drivers on the MSI site and installed them, still I got in Assassins Creed IV around 25-35 fps 1920x1080 resolution all other settings on MINIMUM (off)
The prob. might be with my Nvidia driver, since the MSI afterburner cant recognize its driver version...after I unistalled my graphic driver (several times) I ve tried the Nvidias auto detect option on their official site and it said that it couldnt find any graphics card.
I paid a lot of money for this notebook it would be a shame if it were for nothing, cuz that is what I get from it right now
If you go into Device Manager and look for the video card, is it there? Does it have any ! over it?
It sorta sounds like the video card isn't working to be perfectly honest.
When you play assassin's creed, what color is your power button? I'm guessing it is normally blue, and when you play a game it turns orange I believe.

ATI performance is worse in Linux than in Windows

Hello,
I am using the catalyst driver (version 10.9), with xorg 1.8. Playing some demanding games like 0 A.D shows a lot worse performance on Arch than on Windows (with the same game). My ATI card is an ATI HD 4350.
Is this difference in performance normal? Is there any way to make Arch's graphic processing match Windows's?
I attach my xorg.conf:
Section "ServerLayout"
Identifier "aticonfig Layout"
Screen 0 "aticonfig-Screen[0]-0" 0 0
EndSection
Section "Module"
EndSection
Section "Monitor"
Identifier "aticonfig-Monitor[0]-0"
Option "VendorName" "ATI Proprietary Driver"
Option "ModelName" "Generic Autodetecting Monitor"
Option "DPMS" "true"
EndSection
Section "Device"
Identifier "aticonfig-Device[0]-0"
Driver "fglrx"
BusID "PCI:1:0:0"
EndSection
Section "Screen"
Identifier "aticonfig-Screen[0]-0"
Device "aticonfig-Device[0]-0"
Monitor "aticonfig-Monitor[0]-0"
DefaultDepth 24
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Depth 24
EndSubSection
EndSection

Darksoul71 wrote:
@Davigetto:
Hm, sound like fglrx is loaded correctly. Strange. Check dmesg output and your logs if you see any hint on problems.
flamelab wrote:Fglrx is a piece of garbage. You are lucky that you can have a display on Linux with that.
True, but unless radeon gets a big feature and speed boost fglrx is the only option under Linux to get maximum performance.
At least unless you plug a NVidia card in your mobo.
For now even the "bleeding edge" radeon drivers for R600 chips is mostly only usable for older games (Quake, ioquake, UT2k4).
Well, I don't see anything strange in dmesg. In fact, when I said "performance", I meant "30 fps on Windows, 17-20 fps on Linux".
Maybe is a merely driver problem, but I just want to know wheter I am alone in this kind of problem and more people experiences the same.
Last edited by Davigetto (2010-10-03 21:52:58)

Anyone actually tried out the gaming performance?

Hey so I'm looking to get a new MacBook and was just hoping someone out there already to have one could slap something like the doom3 demo in just so we could hear first hand what its like. I realize its not a gaming computer and I'm not hoping for 40fps at high on graphically intense games, gaming will not be the main use of the laptop if I get one, I am just curious to hear how it is. I have actually gone throught the doom3 demo on my emac (despite the fact it is way below the requirements) with everything turned down and it wasn't bad as long as nothing onscreen moved. Anyways it would be cool to hear what game you tried, what kind of settings and whether it was smooth or a little choppy or what.
Thanks,
Steve

I installed Warcraft on my wife's new MacBook. It is the low end model (1.83ghz) with 1gb of RAM. She was happy with the performance. I was not impressed.
Here are some metrics. I bumped all settings down to the minimum. The shader options are not available as integrated intel video *****. The terrain distance option was bumped to the 1/4 position (meaning just a bit longer than the shortest viewable terrain distance). No vertical sync. Hardware cursor and mouse were both enabled.
Machine lag was not an issue. Stormwind and Ironforge both were responsive enough, even when crossing into the drop zone near the Ironforge Auction house.
The framerates were not very good though. In heavily populated areas it was looking at 14-24 frames per second. It was smooth "enough" but anything less than 24 frames makes it not look as smooth.
The framerates in other areas was better but still not great. Now, it's time for a comparison...
Her Sony Vaio V505-DX with an onboard ATI 9200 at only 32mb performs much better at the same settings. The game is always played with shaders turned on, terrain about the same and all other settings on low. It always manages at least 30 frames per second.
The machine if you're curious:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000D90BR/102-6634257-7920946?v=glance&n=54196 6
I'd say the move to using integrated video was a poor decision. I don't expect crazy performance but this move has further pushed the Mac away from mid-range gamers and potentially game developers. I would not game on one. My wife games maybe an hour or two an evening (we don't watch much TV) so this is an alright fit for her.
If Apple really wanted to bring the games to the Mac platform they would make it attractive to both parties (developers and consumers) but I don't feel they did a good job on that one.

MacBook Air Gaming Performance

I plan on getting the MacBook Air with i7, 8GB of RAM, and 256GB of SSD. My question is how well this machine can run games? Obviously it isnt a gaming machine, but how well will it run games like Counter Strike Global Offensive or Garry's Mod? How bout Minecraft? Or even something like Portal 2? Thanks for all answers!

First thing you'll need to do is get used to checking the game specs to see if the game supports Intel integrated graphics. If it does you can expect it will perform acceptably to well only at the lower graphic settings. The MBA isn't a gaming machine, especially for games that involve high definition 3D rendering. That said, I do play Diablo III and SimCity 4 & 5 on a computer that has slightly less powerful graphics than the current MBA. But there are games that I can't play on that machine at all because they require a discrete video card.

The (nearly) Ultimate Intel HD Graphics 3000 gaming performance sheet

Hi everyone,
I am compiling my personally tested list of about 200 Mac & PC games that can be played on the new (lame ) Intel HD 3000 chip coming
with the new 2011 Macbooks 13" (and presumably in the new Mini and Air, too).
I hope this provides some additional useful infos for people that consider buying a 13" MBP+ and are not sure about the games working with this chip
or about the the performance at all.
Testing System is a MBP i5 2.3GHz with separate Native 10.6.7 , Win7x 64 Pro SP1, and Crossover and Paralles on OS X tests.
10.7 Lion test will also be incorporated, once available.
of course ther is this the Notebookcheck Site Test here: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-H...0.37948.0.html
But if you are looking for more specific games, my chart might help further.
I am currently working and optimzing on this, while I have the time, so it will take time until it´s complete:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?...de&pli=1#gid=1
peace,
if some one feel inclined t contribute to this list feel free to contact me.

Very informative.
Could you include a ranking for games on the lowest settings that get more than 50 fps?
As you know 30 fps is fluid motion, but during gameplay it's not always consistant, it fluxuates up and down depending upon what's going on.
In your ranking for "Playable" the 30fps bar is set a bit too low and stuttering and frame loss occurs if it drops down below that which it will.
So it's kind of hard to determine by just "greater than 30 fps" if the game is worthy of purchase, a "greater than 50 fps" would be more accurate assessment.
This of course may reduce the amount of "Playable" games on the Intel HD 3000, but it's more fair.
Thanks
Also if you could run Cinebench on the 13" MBP and state those scores it woud be very nice. Then one can compare it to te list below.
Here's a list of the fastest GPU's ranked on their OpenGL tests. If one does a search for "6750M" they will see what the 2.2 Ghz 15" MacBook Pro (and higher) with the 1GB Radeon 6750M video card scores. Very impressive for a laptop.
http://www.cbscores.com/index.php?sort=ogl&order=desc
Edit: Oh, someone did submit sorry.
The HD 3000 on the 2011 MBP gets a maximum 11.32 and the 6750 gets 36.27, about 3 1/4 times faster.
Pays to get the 2.2 Ghz 15" MBP or better if your into 3D games.

Worse gaming performance than Kubuntu 12.10?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for