I have an older computer that I use for some simple games. Its I5-7400, GTX-1050, 12GB memory, and an SSD - not new by any standards, but most of the games I’m playing are a decade old or more. I switched to Linux Mint today, since I don’t want to use Windows 11, but the performance on Mint is terrible compared to Windows 10. For example, in Portal 2’s native Linux version, I get like 10 fps in the title screen. War Thunder doesn’t even launch. The drivers are set to Nvidia’s proprietary drivers via the GUI. Am I missing something? I’d really rather not switch back to Windows.

Edit: VulkanInfo is saying, “ERROR: [Loader Message] Code 0: loader_scanned_icd_add: Could not get ‘vkCreateInstance’ via…”

It also seems to only be showing my CPU, not gpu? Not certain, since I don’t unstand a lot of the details, but it says, “deviceType = PHYSICAL_DEVICE_TYPE_CPU”.

Edit 2: turning off secureboot fixed it.

  • Auth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    15 hours ago

    this is really stupid advice. Secureboot should be installed on laptop otherwise your device is as good as open. Sure it has some CVEs but its a big step up in security and its getting better and better on linux.

    This performance issue is likely due to an issue with the driver not with secure boot itself. Maybe since it is an old driver it wasnt signed.

    • greevar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I second SavvyWolf. Full disk encryption is better than SecureBoot. SB is security theater for people who don’t know what they’re doing and don’t know how to avoid getting their laptop infected in the first place. As I said before, SB has already been defeated. Every hacker/malware can bypass it already. It’s like pretending you have armor on and going headlong into a sword fight.

    • SavvyWolf@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      What advantage does secure boot have compared to full disk encryption? The only examples I’ve seen have been contrived evil maid attack that fails under scrutiny.

      • AcornTickler@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        If you have to choose between one, then yes; full disk encryption is superior. But they should ideally be used in tandem.

        Without secure boot, you are vulnerable to evil maid attacks. A bad actor can modify your bootloader (which has to remain unencrypted) in a way that allows them to steal your encryption keys. Secure Boot prevents running unsigned bootloaders, which negates this risk.