News:

Willkommen im Notebookcheck.com Forum! Hier können Sie über alle unsere Artikel und allgemein über notebookrelevante Dinge diskutieren. Viel Spass!

Main Menu

Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning - while you were reading a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Ye
 - Today at 11:51:08
Quote from: KennethL on July 15, 2026, 17:20:21I don't think a 5, 10 or 20% FPS advantage to Windows wouldn't get a Linux user to switch to Windows. I wouldn't switch if games ran 50% better on Windows with the same hardware.
Correct, me neither. Fortunately, it's not 50%, but more like low single to double digits %, but games that require anti-cheat and, as such, don't work on Linux is the biggest issue.

QuoteWindows 11 came out on top in every game tested. In Cyberpunk 2077, it achieved 149 FPS at 1440p compared with 140 FPS on Linux. In Arc Raiders, Windows reached 145 FPS versus 133 FPS, with an even larger gap in the 1% lows: 131 FPS compared with 94 FPS. Marvel Rivals also performed well on Linux at 110 FPS, although Windows still edged ahead with 116 FPS. Fortnite, meanwhile, would not launch at all because Easy Anti-Cheat does not support Linux. Valorant, Xbox Game Pass titles and several other games that rely on incompatible anti-cheat systems also remain unavailable on Linux.
This is a joke of a difference, except for the 131 vs 94 FPS 1% lows (would still not switch to Win, ofc).
Posted by TheNTSyncPrimitive
 - Today at 10:16:23
Reading through the comments I can confirm not concur on THIS:

Windows deteriorates badly after a fresh install... My Linux box? Nothing - just pure drift down the road - !

I have better performance in all Vulcan and GL based games... IDTech and Cyberpunk is outperforming Windows - easily!

So benchmarks on raw performance is debatable - because the Linux kernel is purpose built for different distros.

Ultimately, as someone stated - if I have to pay 9 frames? That's probably the biggest investment and value add possibly imaginable.... Because by the end of the day, the gamer doesn't care! The gamer like anyone else JUST LIKES THINGS THAT WORK — EVERY - SINGLE - DAY ;^)
Posted by Baldrick
 - Today at 08:55:18
Oh no, a game ran at a mere 140fps on Linux instead of 149fps on Windows. The horror!

Seriously?

Whilst glossing over the horrific privacy issues and appalling vibe-coded monthly security patches that take an hour to apply, require multiple reboots, and that have a 50-50 chance of breaking something important.

Not to mention the rampant viruses and malware.

The peace of mind of a private, secure Operating System, and chill patching is well worth the lost 9fps IMHO.
Posted by Via
 - Today at 08:43:12
first of, they didnt use CatchyOS.
second, they used fresh windows install - keep it for a month or two it will be so full of s*** that it will slow anything down.

linux porforms 10% or more better.
Posted by hwertz
 - July 15, 2026, 21:55:40
I'm not going to excuse away their results.  The big boost people see on Linux is often with DX9/10/11 games, DX12 there's less 'cruft' to cut through and get nice speedups, so these results don't surprise me too much soince these are all modern dx12 games.
Posted by CajunMoses
 - July 15, 2026, 21:05:42
It's very hard for a single distribution to represent "Linux." Better to perform a gaming test with an aggregate of distros that represent at the least top 80% of the distros most frequently used for gaming. Average each test result weighted by frequency of use to get representative "Linux" results.
Posted by MickeyW
 - July 15, 2026, 19:39:10
Quote from: Jankrat on July 15, 2026, 18:24:34Fine, use a tweaked-out version of Linux for the benchmark. To be fair, you then have to use a similarly-tweaked version of Windows for comparison,though - so all the gains folks are imagining will be erased.

Since, similarly-tweaked version of Windows does not exist, Linux wins. Appropriate comparison was like picking the car model of the same line but with lowest powered engine (Linux) and on the other side comparing it with highest powered engine (Windows). You just need to pick comparable model, not tune the engine (though you can do that as well).
Posted by The Yar
 - July 15, 2026, 18:54:51
Quote from: Joom on July 15, 2026, 17:02:36
Quote from: L on July 15, 2026, 14:54:59If I have to choose a specific distro for gaming then it's not a viable solution, especially since more often than not some tweaks are required from my experience.

Ah, yes, because Windows is famous for not needing tweaks to be an enjoyable experience.

That is correct.
Posted by The Yar
 - July 15, 2026, 18:54:08
Testing reveals but community disagrees. Not surprising.
Posted by Zz
 - July 15, 2026, 18:46:44
Quote from: KennethL on July 15, 2026, 17:20:21What's the point of comparing Windows and Linux? You're either on Windows or some Linux distro that works for you. I don't think a 5, 10 or 20% FPS advantage to Windows wouldn't get a Linux user to switch to Windows. I wouldn't switch if games ran 50% better on Windows with the same hardware.

100% this. I didn't leave Windows because I thought games worked better on Linux; I left Windows in spite of my perception that games perform better on Windows. Game performance is a secondary or tertiary concern.
Posted by Jankrat
 - July 15, 2026, 18:24:34
Fine, use a tweaked-out version of Linux for the benchmark. To be fair, you then have to use a similarly-tweaked version of Windows for comparison,though - so all the gains folks are imagining will be erased.
Posted by Sam Bridges
 - July 15, 2026, 18:08:27
I switched to Linux when the only games you could play were the native ones. I ain't the correct target audience here.

Still, I read it. My reaction is: Sure, slightly better performance on Windows. If that's more important than all the other reasons windows sucks. Keep using Windows.
Posted by Stoot
 - July 15, 2026, 17:59:39
The argument that they use the wrong distro to do the benchmarks is a little crazy to me. Distro hopping to hit a certain performance threshold isn't the right way to go about things, especially given gaming distros tend to have a lot of trade-offs. Performance on a normal, everyday Linux distro like Fedora, Ubuntu, or similar is perfectly valid.
Posted by Joom
 - July 15, 2026, 17:39:22
Quote from: KennethL on July 15, 2026, 17:20:21I wouldn't switch if games ran 50% better on Windows with the same hardware.

Same. I ditched Windows 20 years ago, because Microsoft has been up to shenanigans for a very long time. I was a hacker and privacy advocate first, and Linux adopting gaming is just extra icing on the cake that further justifies the decision I made. It's single-handedly helped Linux climb the market share at an unprecedented rate, which has attracted the attention of more developers, which has only resulted in rapid refinement of the overall desktop experience. That, and my PC is a workbench that happens to play games, rather than a gaming rig that sees nothing productive. If your PC is nothing more than a toy, Windows probably is a good fit for you.

Quote from: Dilli on July 15, 2026, 17:35:01EAC is compatible. Arc raiders uses it and it plays just fine on my PC. Fortnite decided to no support Linux, not EAC.

I'm fairly certain it does use EAC, considering that Epic are who make EAC. The thing is that Linux support has to be checked off when bundling a game for release. Some studios don't do this, and this is because the Linux EAC runtime only runs in user mode. It doesn't have kernel access, like on Windows, so it can kinda be easily bypassed, depending on the game.
Posted by Dilli
 - July 15, 2026, 17:35:01
EAC is compatible. Arc raiders uses it and it plays just fine on my PC. Fortnite decided to no support Linux, not EAC.