New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
NTSync for bleeding-edge #7501
Comments
That chart is misleading as it compares against wineserver which you normally do not use but use esync and fsync ( if available always fsync is used , which is since some 5.x kernel, other than some app workarounds that disables fsync ). Ntsync vs fsync is barely an improvement in many cases. |
The primary objective of NTsync is not merely to enhance speed but rather to prioritize compatibility, ensuring seamless operation at the same speed or even surpassing it. |
My apologies. Next time i won't rush the request & i will either write a more proper description or leave the description field blank. |
I tested NTsync vs Fsync on proton-cachyos and performance improvements in terms of fps aren't high, is just around 5 fps, but I noticed much more stable frametimes and less latency, games feels more responsive than on fsync. |
I'd also argue that every boost to performance and stability in games should be a priority for Valve since this will be a step that would get some games from almost playable to be playable. And getting a little more stability for a ton of games means that it's also a small boost to the general user experience. So I hope this will get implemented. |
it should be noted that this also requires kernel support and the patchset isn't upstream yet so very few people would be able to make use of this at this time |
It looks like |
This comment got me curious and my testing agrees with this. I tried to keep this reasonable by running the games at settings that don't cause the rendering to become primarily CPU-bound, since that's usually how people actually run them. Quick specs:
Any significant improvement to game smoothness is a big win in my book, because it's currently in a terrible state. This and a more appropriate scheduler currently seem to be where those improvements can be made. |
Feature Request (Bleeding-Edge)
NTSYNC (Current version is 5)
I confirm:
contain this feature already.
Description
NTSYNC
Files
NTsync (Wine)
https://repo.or.cz/wine/zf.git/shortlog/refs/heads/ntsync5
NTSync (Kernel) > To be sent to the Deck kernel team if you choose to implement the feature
https://repo.or.cz/linux/zf.git/shortlog/refs/heads/ntsync5
Thanks for reading :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: