Games run faster on SteamOS with proton than Windows 11, Ars testing finds
FTFY. I hate all these articles that downplay the heavy lifting proton (and all the tools that make it up) are doing. But “Proton makes games run better” doesn’t get the same attention.
Proton is amazing, but it’s entirely overhead translating library/system calls to Linux. It’s accurate to say they run better on SteamOS, not to say Proton is making it run better.
Now maybe Proton makes them run better than a janky but native Linux port, but that’s a separate statement about games being better optimized on Windows.
They’re not only being better optimized on Windows which results that running them through Proton is better. In a lot of cases Windows versions actually run, while native Linux don’t, because there’s no single stable API (ABI? Idk) on Linux and games break when you update your system.
Proton is amazing, but it’s entirely overhead translating library/system calls to Linux.
That is not at all true.
but that’s a separate statement about games being better optimized on Windows.
Is that though? You can’t say X is better than Y when you’re changing multiple variables. If windows had a proton equivalent and both games ran through it then yes that would be a direct comparison. But you can’t say X + Y is better than Z (by itself)
DXVK is a part of proton that also is available on windows. DXVK alone can get you double digit performance improvements on games. And that’s not getting into all the one off tweaks users can do to proton to optimize the game. Enabling pre compiled shaders gave a huge performance boost for Elden Ring.
But you can’t say X + Y is better than Z (by itself)
I mean, yeah, you absolutely can. Especially when X + Y and Z are both common configurations, and using X or Y by themselves is uncommon or a known bad setup.
Sure, you can’t be certain which of X or Y is making the differences in the comparison, but the comparison can absolutely be made.
There is overhead but Vulkan allows you to batch draw calls in a far more efficient manner. It can also generally use multi threading to feed a GPU even if the game isn’t coded with that in mind. Basically Vulkan offers so many improvements to efficiency and parallelization that the overhead is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall speedup in draw call optimization alone.
The compatibility layer is overhead, but the key difference for many games is that DXVK swaps directX for Vulkan, and Vulkan often gets better performance.
The performance gains of using steamOS are twofold, there’s less OS load (this is particularly noticeable in low performance games, windows will consume much more battery on a game like Dead Cells than SteamOS will), and there’s also a vulkan performance increase for some games. My understanding is if you see a big performance increase in a demanding game, that’s usually thanks to vulkan.
Vulkan isn’t magic, its power comes from the flexibility it gives developers in its API. If developers are using DirectX, especially older versions, then they’re not utilizing that flexibility.
If DirectX code performs better through a Vulkan translation layer than on Windows, it means the driver implementations or OS bloat are what’s causing it.
With your theory, you could run a DirectX to Vulkan translation layer on Windows and also get increased performance. Which may be true, but once again points the finger at bad drivers.
With your theory, you could run a DirectX to Vulkan translation layer on Windows and also get increased performance. Which may be true, but once again points the finger at bad drivers.
Yes, from what I’ve been told that actually does improve performance in many games.
In the same way that talking to a presidential translator is faster for a diplomat than talking to Trump. The translation layer can communicate more concisely and effectively.
I’m not sure it’s a Wine/Proton thing, it’s quite likely to be suboptimal at some things because it’s reverse engineered (not to diminish technical marvel that it is and decades of effort). Regular desktop Windows has just way too much overhead coming from everywhere.
As a side note, back in the day when Nvidia released drivers for FreeBSD using Linux binary compatibility layer was even faster than Linux for gaming.
FTFY. I hate all these articles that downplay the heavy lifting proton (and all the tools that make it up) are doing. But “Proton makes games run better” doesn’t get the same attention.
I find they run even faster with Glorious Eggroll fork of proton
Proton is amazing, but it’s entirely overhead translating library/system calls to Linux. It’s accurate to say they run better on SteamOS, not to say Proton is making it run better.
Now maybe Proton makes them run better than a janky but native Linux port, but that’s a separate statement about games being better optimized on Windows.
They’re not only being better optimized on Windows which results that running them through Proton is better. In a lot of cases Windows versions actually run, while native Linux don’t, because there’s no single stable API (ABI? Idk) on Linux and games break when you update your system.
Application Brogramming Interface?
Almost. Application Binary Interface
Hogwarts legacy, which is a exe, runs on proton but not on windows 10. I’d say proton runs better than windows.
That’s hilarious, but not really the same thing.
That is not at all true.
Is that though? You can’t say X is better than Y when you’re changing multiple variables. If windows had a proton equivalent and both games ran through it then yes that would be a direct comparison. But you can’t say X + Y is better than Z (by itself)
DXVK is a part of proton that also is available on windows. DXVK alone can get you double digit performance improvements on games. And that’s not getting into all the one off tweaks users can do to proton to optimize the game. Enabling pre compiled shaders gave a huge performance boost for Elden Ring.
I mean, yeah, you absolutely can. Especially when X + Y and Z are both common configurations, and using X or Y by themselves is uncommon or a known bad setup.
Sure, you can’t be certain which of X or Y is making the differences in the comparison, but the comparison can absolutely be made.
How is running an extra compatibility layer not overhead?
There is overhead but Vulkan allows you to batch draw calls in a far more efficient manner. It can also generally use multi threading to feed a GPU even if the game isn’t coded with that in mind. Basically Vulkan offers so many improvements to efficiency and parallelization that the overhead is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall speedup in draw call optimization alone.
The compatibility layer is overhead, but the key difference for many games is that DXVK swaps directX for Vulkan, and Vulkan often gets better performance.
The performance gains of using steamOS are twofold, there’s less OS load (this is particularly noticeable in low performance games, windows will consume much more battery on a game like Dead Cells than SteamOS will), and there’s also a vulkan performance increase for some games. My understanding is if you see a big performance increase in a demanding game, that’s usually thanks to vulkan.
Vulkan isn’t magic, its power comes from the flexibility it gives developers in its API. If developers are using DirectX, especially older versions, then they’re not utilizing that flexibility.
If DirectX code performs better through a Vulkan translation layer than on Windows, it means the driver implementations or OS bloat are what’s causing it.
With your theory, you could run a DirectX to Vulkan translation layer on Windows and also get increased performance. Which may be true, but once again points the finger at bad drivers.
Yes, from what I’ve been told that actually does improve performance in many games.
It’s not just overhead.
In the same way that talking to a presidential translator is faster for a diplomat than talking to Trump. The translation layer can communicate more concisely and effectively.
Shh just let him wear himself out.
I’m not sure it’s a Wine/Proton thing, it’s quite likely to be suboptimal at some things because it’s reverse engineered (not to diminish technical marvel that it is and decades of effort). Regular desktop Windows has just way too much overhead coming from everywhere.
As a side note, back in the day when Nvidia released drivers for FreeBSD using Linux binary compatibility layer was even faster than Linux for gaming.
Would love to see tests like this attempting to use DXVK etc (as part of their testing on Windows) to better isolate more factors