Gaming: Ubuntu vs. Arch

Crazy Hitchhiker

Distinguished
May 3, 2010
39
0
18,540
What do you think is better for playing 3d games native for linux: Ubuntu or Arch Linux? I have messed around with both and have found that Arch is a very lightweight os. This may translate into better framerates and overall stability. Or does the OS being used not matter if you have the correct graphics card drivers installed?
 
Solution
It's all a matter of experience and configuration. You could use Ubuntu, but install a very lightweight GUI (like fluxbox and LXDE) to get the system resource use down. The less use on your system, the better.

I have yet to get Arch working smoothly, so no opinion on that side of the coin. I'd say go for the latest Ubuntu and put a good, lightweight GUI on it.
It's all a matter of experience and configuration. You could use Ubuntu, but install a very lightweight GUI (like fluxbox and LXDE) to get the system resource use down. The less use on your system, the better.

I have yet to get Arch working smoothly, so no opinion on that side of the coin. I'd say go for the latest Ubuntu and put a good, lightweight GUI on it.
 
Solution
 


So for example running Arch with xfce is going to be a better bet than running Ubuntu with KDE/compiz installed, right?
 
AFA Resource Requirements:
KDE>Gnome>XFCE>LXDE

& FYI:

WINDOWS MANAGER
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_manager
http://xwinman.org/
http://www.linuxlinks.com/article/20081209153125602/WindowManagers.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESKTOP ENVIRONMENT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_environment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_X_Window_System_desktop_environments
http://www.systhread.net/texts/200903xvishist1.php

Read, Learn
 
Just to give you some idea, in KDE on Fedora, Linpack gives me results of ~78-79 GFLOPS; in text-only mode, I get ~80.1 GFLOPS, and much less variation. I know that is CPU only, but still interesting. (Yes, i5 2500K @ stock.)