I’m quite certain it was being compared to mainline WINE, so no esync or fsync which themselves usually double FPS in CPU-bound scenarios.
Hers is actually better
[citation needed]
From what I gather from the ntsync feedback thread where some users have tested the WIP patches, it’s not clearly better than esync/fsync but rather slightly worse. Though that isn’t very clear data as it’s still in development. Still, if it was very clearly better than the status quo, we should have already seen that.
can be fully implemented in Wine
It cannot, hence the kernel patch.
It’ll be better but no one really knows the full concrete extend of improvement until it lands
I see no reason to believe it should be “better”. If anything, I’d expect slightly worse performance than esync/fsync because upstream WINE primarily wants a correct solution while the out-of-tree esync/fsync patches trade some correctness for performance in games.
Ideally, I’d like to be proven wrong; that ntsync is both correct and performant but that’s not what you should expect going into this.
I’m quite certain it was being compared to mainline WINE, so no esync or fsync which themselves usually double FPS in CPU-bound scenarios.
[citation needed]
From what I gather from the ntsync feedback thread where some users have tested the WIP patches, it’s not clearly better than esync/fsync but rather slightly worse. Though that isn’t very clear data as it’s still in development. Still, if it was very clearly better than the status quo, we should have already seen that.
It cannot, hence the kernel patch.
I see no reason to believe it should be “better”. If anything, I’d expect slightly worse performance than esync/fsync because upstream WINE primarily wants a correct solution while the out-of-tree esync/fsync patches trade some correctness for performance in games.
Ideally, I’d like to be proven wrong; that ntsync is both correct and performant but that’s not what you should expect going into this.