686
Windows 11 scores dead last in gaming performance tests against 3 Linux gaming distros
(www.notebookcheck.net)
this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
686 points (83.2% liked)
Technology
59666 readers
2913 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not surprised at the confusion, because they're using it... not wrong, but very confusingly.
Frame time is literally the time to render a frame. So you'd expect that to be a number of miliseconds per frame and so for lower to be better.
But they're not looking at frametimes, they're looking at 1% lows and expressing that in fps, not in frametimes. So yeah, confusing.
For the record, the reson why the term is becoming popular is that there are now widespread visualizations that will give you a line of your frametimes in a graph so you can see if the line is flat or spiky. You've probably seen it on the Steam Deck or performance analysis videos or whatever. The idea is that all frametimes being consistent is better than high fps but low 1% or 0.1% low. So stable 60fps can look better than spiky 90fps and so on.