Soooo when did Arch become a gaming focused OS?
Since Valve decided that.
Manjaro is/used to be a good choice for gaming purpose
Is arch really gaming focused though?
Arch is focused on being cutting-edge and lightweight which happens to be perfect for gaming performance in most cases but that's all.
Arch is focused on however you put it together
Arch is focused like the same way a beach is a camera lens.
Exactly. The only thing Arch focuses on is not focusing on anything. They ship packages as vanilla as possible, have pretty much no default configuration, etc. In short, they try to make as few assumptions as possible.
It ends up being pretty good for gaming because Linux is pretty good for gaming. They're explicitly not doing anything special here.
shrug, I've been using arch and Manjaro for years and gaming in them. They are what you make them, and AUR is massive and solves a lot of problems I have in other distros so that's why I use it.
SteamOS is based on Arch, likely why they picked it.
That's like saying PlayStation 5 and Switch are based on FreeBSD, so you should game on FreeBSD (well, not quite, but hopefully the point is clear). FreeBSD isn't good for gaming, it's just liberally licensed and easy to build on top of, hence why it's used.
Valve has reasons to use an Arch base, and none of them have anything to do with any specific benefit regarding gaming. It's easy to fork and maintain customized build files for since it makes so few assumptions (packages are as vanilla as possible in Arch, so it's easier to maintain a patch set).
Valve likely has patches in SteamOS that haven't made it to upstream Arch, and there's likely a number of packages that are quite outdated vs upstream Arch, so installing upstream Arch will give you quite a different experience vs SteamOS.
I recently switched to ubuntu in a gaming laptop, right now I've been using it just for jellyfin and some other coding tasks, but it definitely runs smoother, more stable, quicker, and cooler than windows did for the same workload.
I was surprised at the difference of even just having the machine idle, on windows it was noticeable warm, now on ubuntu it's almost as if it has been turned off.
Assuming this is the usual case where most games are within noise of each other, the ones that don't run under linux are excluded, and nobody acknowledges that the need to precache/predownload shaders provides short term benefits.
Its like people miss the good old days of "This is the year of linux gaming. Everything works and is perfect. Okay, those games don't work. But every game I care about works. Except the ones that don't". Like, we really are in a golden age of gaming parity but pretending there isn't still work to be done serves no benefit.
Yup. Just use the same benchmarks major sites use and note any interesting differences. They usually pick games for specific technical reasons, so most of the work figuring out where Linux is weak is done for you.
I personally play on Linux because I use Linux, but because I think it has better performance than Windows or whatever. That should be the selling point, not slight differences in performance. Show that Linux is largely on par with Windows, and then go through all of the other benefits to using Linux, like privacy, package management, and user choice.
Description is false. Windows won in R&C. This was not an across the board win for Linux. Good news doesn't need to be sensationalized.
Updated the summary about Windows winning.
Computerbase is very solid and well known in Germany and have been covering Linux quite a bit for a while now.
Performance of course can fluctuate heavily between games but the amount of progress that Linux made over the past decade is nothing but astonishing.
that's kind of my take on it too. Linux has come so far from what it used to be like. it's not quite ready to see mass-adoption, but it's making some amazing strides. so many different parties have been contributing to a massive effort to iron out some of the issues with Linux. once performance improves significantly over Windows, and compatibility gets a little more wide-spread, you'll start to see people willing to put up with the teething problems, in the name of superior performance.
THAT is when Linux will see more mainstream success.
some year, i don't know when, really will be the year of Linux.... maybe.
Ok, but what about Nvidia GPUs? Those are what the the vast majority of gamers use.
Nvidia has been kind of a mess for me on Wayland, especially the lastest 545 drivers. I just switched to AMD and literally all my issues disappeared, including one I thought was a KDE plasma bug
93A1A71EABD6B6CD658458CC1F4
Does it really matter? The majority buy Nvidia due to mindshare, the same probably goes for why they use Windows.
Nvidia has been so far ahead of AMD cards for so long, and running AI stuff on them is a much better experience as well.
I love AMD and wished it weren't so, but buying an AMD video card can only be justified by price or Linux compatibility.
It's anecdotal but I saw a significant improvement in multiple games on an Nvidia 1050 running Nobara. Had no issues installing drivers and getting things set up.
Nvidia 1070 here. Haven't run into problems using Mint or Endevour. Had to choose propriety drivers on Mint, but that was it.
Might buy an AMD card next, but that's more to see if there are any features I'm missing out on. I'm also excited to see whether AMD has grown better hardware, as it was a constant hassle when I last used one 10+ years ago.
These tech YouTubers should do Linux comparisons. These are not small differences when comparing, let's say, Nvidia 4060 and the RX 7600. It could make the AMD GPU edge out the more expensive Nvidia offering
I've been using arch and manjaro for the past 3 years with awesomewm and gnome (can't get awesomewm to behave with second monitor while gaming so I switch to gnome when using the second monitor, using laptop) and this has pretty much been my experience. Windows is bloated and it never"just works".
Windows almost always just works.
This seems crazy to say when talking about Linux. Especially when saying you have to switch to use dual monitors.
I have to agree. I love Linux but Windows really does just work. Especially when it comes to gaming. I applaud anyone that enjoys Linux gaming but don't act like it's anywhere near as simple as on windows.
Nearly always something random breaks for me on windows, and it's a huge pain to fix it. I hate dealing with windows, Linux is easier, because it isn't a black box.
A stupid amount of non tech users manage to use it absolutely fine, so I'm not sure what you're doing wrong tbh.
Linux is 100% not easier and not advertised as such.
A stupid amount of non tech users manage to use it
Meanwhile, most of those users are running systems that are so deteriorated that it takes them a minute+ to open a browser.
On a machine that they only use to browse internet.
Sounds like skill issue when even grandmas can use Windows
Yeah we love Linux but don't need the exaggerations
Yeah. In all the time I’ve been using windows I never had a problem that people constantly report; even BSOD happened quite rarely. I never got my pc to randomly shut down and update either…
Like, I switched to Linux cause i saw it as cool, wanted to try it out and liked how customisable it was and mostly to spite the megacorp
Honestly since windows 10 the only blue screens I've gotten are due to my own doing.
I'm not familiar with the games mentioned in the article, but Linux is great for gaming. I run Manjaro on my T540p laptop and have never had problems with Angband or Nethack. I can even run DF with tilesets if I'm feeling spunky. Mind you, I do have 8 gbs of RAM and a pretty sweet Intel integrated graphics setup, so that may be why it's so smooth.
When first switching to Linux I tried Pop!_os and it was awful was a headache to get anything to work .. switched to Ubuntu and all my problems went away , I don't recommend using pop .
For me it was the reverse. Pop was the clear winner for several reasons. Plus I like System76 overall. I vigorously recommend Pop as a beginner/gaming choice.
But honestly, Ubuntu vs PopOS should not have been that different for you - they are extremely similar. Pop is cleaner with less bloat, and not beholden to Canonical.
To each their own of course, and having options is what makes switching great.
This may be a YMMV situation. I'm not a huge gamer, but Pop has worked great for me for nearly all games I've tried. The one glaring exception has been the Civilization series (specifically 3 and 6)... Anyone know if that's a Linux problem, a Pop problem, or a just me problem?
(Also, sorry you're getting downvoted for sharing your honest opinion/personal experience)
For me it was the other way around. I did notice performance issues then I tried fedora and they went away so I've been sticking with fedora
Anyone tried crysis?
That's when we know it's:
The year of the Linux desktop
When we all can finally run crysis.
Hasn’t this been happening for years?
Intel’s clear Linux had similar articles published about it years ago.
slim margin isn't significant enough.
I want bigger margins.
Still very impressive considering this is all run by translating the same Windows API calls into Linux ones, and then running them. There's definitely some overhead in doing this, and yet they still beat Windows native.
Linux Gaming
Discussions and news about gaming on the GNU/Linux family of operating systems (including the Steam Deck). Potentially a $HOME
away from home for disgruntled /r/linux_gaming denizens of the redditarian demesne.
This page can be subscribed to via RSS.
Original /r/linux_gaming pengwing by uoou.
Resources
WWW:
Discord:
IRC:
Matrix:
Telegram: