3 ms·

>The most irritating thing was the reduced input latency on Linux Huh. That's a big competitive advantage in competitive games. Why don't pro CS players use Li

by marvin 6y ago

>The most irritating thing was the reduced input latency on Linux Huh. That's a big competitive advantage in competitive games. Why don't pro CS players use Linux? Is the difference smaller in the games that have been optimized for competitive play?

seg_lol 6y ago
> for the first few hours
mhh__ 6y ago
The PCs are provided by the tourney organisers, and it's a marginal benefit really. Most professional CS is played at 4:3 stretched so the PC is pulling in hundreds of FPS
- Alupis 6y ago
  > Most professional CS is played at 4:3 stretched so the PC is pulling in hundreds of FPS That's unlikely to be true anymore. Even a modestly modern GPU can produce 100's of FPS in CS:GO at 1920x1080 or higher resolutions. Benchmarks for the 3080 were showing 400-500 FPS in CS:GO at 1440p resolutions. After maybe double your screen refresh rate, all excess FPS don't matter and are effectively wasted. Pro's mostly use 144Hz monitors because 240Hz is indistinguishable[1] - making anything above 288FPS basically a waste (and it's debatable if anything above 144FPS with FreeSync enabled is a waste too). [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    The stretched resolution is because it makes people thicker at the expense of FoV, not performance as per se
nvarsj 6y ago
I don't know how true this is. Personally I've always noticed significantly more input lag on Linux than Windows for games. I even used to hack on ezquake's Linux port to try and get the input lag down, but the Linux kernel just caused too much latency. This could have changed since then though. You have to realize MS invested significantly in "gaming APIs" like DirectInput, DirectX all tuned to low latency gaming. Linux never really had anything like that. I'd love to see results showing otherwise, I'd far prefer to game in Linux if possible.
- zepearl 6y ago
  It could be that it can vary in multiple areas and depending as well on a lot of different stuff (kernel version, drivers/modules, settings, SW being used, ...). Personally, I always had the feeling that video was slower on Linux (always used nVidia proprietary drivers in Linux), but when I used to play a bit of e-guitar the audio latency was definitely better in Linux (but as well just for audio there are a lot of settings that play some role - e.g. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Professional_audio https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Professional_audio ).
  - nvarsj 6y ago
    I play a lot of stepmania (DDR and stamina), and I have really struggled with audio latency in Linux. And I have spent far too much time on PulseAudio and JACK configuration. Windows, again, is fine with nearly no latency and virtually no configuration required. I have resigned myself to just having a dedicated Windows partition for gaming.

by marvin 6y ago

seg_lol 6y ago

> for the first few hours

mhh__ 6y ago

The PCs are provided by the tourney organisers, and it's a marginal benefit really. Most professional CS is played at 4:3 stretched so the PC is pulling in hundreds of FPS

Alupis 6y ago
> Most professional CS is played at 4:3 stretched so the PC is pulling in hundreds of FPS That's unlikely to be true anymore. Even a modestly modern GPU can produce 100's of FPS in CS:GO at 1920x1080 or higher resolutions. Benchmarks for the 3080 were showing 400-500 FPS in CS:GO at 1440p resolutions. After maybe double your screen refresh rate, all excess FPS don't matter and are effectively wasted. Pro's mostly use 144Hz monitors because 240Hz is indistinguishable[1] - making anything above 288FPS basically a waste (and it's debatable if anything above 144FPS with FreeSync enabled is a waste too). [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA
- mhh__ 6y ago
  The stretched resolution is because it makes people thicker at the expense of FoV, not performance as per se

nvarsj 6y ago

I don't know how true this is. Personally I've always noticed significantly more input lag on Linux than Windows for games. I even used to hack on ezquake's Linux port to try and get the input lag down, but the Linux kernel just caused too much latency. This could have changed since then though. You have to realize MS invested significantly in "gaming APIs" like DirectInput, DirectX all tuned to low latency gaming. Linux never really had anything like that. I'd love to see results showing otherwise, I'd far prefer to game in Linux if possible.

zepearl 6y ago
It could be that it can vary in multiple areas and depending as well on a lot of different stuff (kernel version, drivers/modules, settings, SW being used, ...). Personally, I always had the feeling that video was slower on Linux (always used nVidia proprietary drivers in Linux), but when I used to play a bit of e-guitar the audio latency was definitely better in Linux (but as well just for audio there are a lot of settings that play some role - e.g. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Professional_audio https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Professional_audio ).
- nvarsj 6y ago
  I play a lot of stepmania (DDR and stamina), and I have really struggled with audio latency in Linux. And I have spent far too much time on PulseAudio and JACK configuration. Windows, again, is fine with nearly no latency and virtually no configuration required. I have resigned myself to just having a dedicated Windows partition for gaming.