Linux Kernel 6.14 has arrived, bringing a clutch of changes to make your computer run more efficiently and more securely than before. Interestingly, Linux
fsync isn’t faster than ntsync, it’s merely a workaround to match Linux to Windows synchronization primitives. From ntsync’s official description:
It exists because implementation in user-space, using existing tools, cannot match Windows performance while offering accurate semantics.
So without this, you either have a huge perfomance hit in case of an accurate implementation or you have good performance, but might run into edge cases where software doesn’t work well or at all because it’s not accurate (see https://github.com/ValveSoftware/Proton/issues/2922 for examples)
I don’t think his statement is true though. If https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/1ce7z19/gaming_on_linux_ep131_ntsync_vs_fsync_nobara_39/l1ho8od/ is not manipulated in any way, games with lots of these calls still get big improvements with ntsync over fsync (about 30% in this particular case, which is a massive boost). So while nobody can rule out that his statement may be true on average or in general, there are still cases where ntsync offers a tangible advantage – be it improved FPS or the fact that the game runs at all.
Edit: in the video that the thread is about, fsync didn’t beat ntsync in a single one (or I missed it when jumping through it). In the best one, they were exactly tied. Sure, the difference wasn’t really big, but again there are titles not working with fsync.
However, I want to stress that I’m not trying to talk about fsync. It’s a good solution that significantly improved performance. But ntsync is, from everything I’ve seen, almost always better; how much depends on the case, and it never seems to be worse.
Not sure there’s a better way to say it. I guess “the SteamOS fork of the Linux kernel” would be more explicit, but I assume most people who would read this are aware that SteamOS is built on Linux.
fsync isn’t faster than ntsync, it’s merely a workaround to match Linux to Windows synchronization primitives. From ntsync’s official description:
So without this, you either have a huge perfomance hit in case of an accurate implementation or you have good performance, but might run into edge cases where software doesn’t work well or at all because it’s not accurate (see https://github.com/ValveSoftware/Proton/issues/2922 for examples)
not my words. It’s the Valve dev who said it.
I don’t think his statement is true though. If https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/1ce7z19/gaming_on_linux_ep131_ntsync_vs_fsync_nobara_39/l1ho8od/ is not manipulated in any way, games with lots of these calls still get big improvements with ntsync over fsync (about 30% in this particular case, which is a massive boost). So while nobody can rule out that his statement may be true on average or in general, there are still cases where ntsync offers a tangible advantage – be it improved FPS or the fact that the game runs at all.
Edit: in the video that the thread is about, fsync didn’t beat ntsync in a single one (or I missed it when jumping through it). In the best one, they were exactly tied. Sure, the difference wasn’t really big, but again there are titles not working with fsync.
However, I want to stress that I’m not trying to talk about fsync. It’s a good solution that significantly improved performance. But ntsync is, from everything I’ve seen, almost always better; how much depends on the case, and it never seems to be worse.
Why is he using the term “SteamOS kernel”?
Well, he’s talking about the kernel they are using in SteamOS. The Deck OS is also being extended to other handhelds.
Still a weird way to say this.
Not sure there’s a better way to say it. I guess “the SteamOS fork of the Linux kernel” would be more explicit, but I assume most people who would read this are aware that SteamOS is built on Linux.