• MangoPenguin
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Wait, isn’t a lower frame time better? Why does their screenshot show windows having the lowest and say that it scored last?

    Looking at the source article, windows did have generally better 1% lows except for Starfield, so I think this article has it backwards. They also cherry picked 2 results where windows was worse lol.

    I’m all for pro-linux stuff but articles like this just reek of making shit up so it looks better.

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think FPS was actually selected, not frametimes. 1% low frametimes of 89 does not make sense.

      There is an issue with the image in the article, but not the one that you might think it was. The FPS should have been more clearly indicated that it was the selected tab and then it probably would have been fine.

      edit: I went to the base website https://www.computerbase.de/2023-12/welche-linux-distribution-zum-spielen/2/ it’s in German, but, it seems like the frametimes and frame rates are nearly the exact same values - which doesn’t even seem to make sense to me?

    • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      They probably didn’t label their axes properly. FPS is a clearly defined metric, and there, more is better. This indicates that the conclusion (Linux is faster) holds. Since frame times have an entry with value “100” and all other values are lower, I assume that’s in percent, i.e. Arch Linux is the fastest and picked as comparison point, and the others are shown with relative performance to Arch.

      • Holzkohlen@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        It says “Prozent” in the bottom left of the screenshot. You are correct. They use percent to compare them. So more is actually better here.