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.
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.
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.
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.
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.