Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GeForce 700 vs. Radeon Rx 200 Series With The Latest Linux Drivers

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by phill1978 View Post
    Thanks for the write up! Wow you bought that FX-9590 .. I feel for your loss
    Some people support AMD reguardless of the performance. I always support AMD.

    Comment


    • #32
      Some people wants to bashing ATI and then AMD it must be tradition or something .

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by dungeon View Post
        Some people wants to bashing ATI and then AMD it must be tradition or something .
        of course traditions are formed through many years of recurrent experience i.e AMD having poor drivers is definitely a tradition

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by phill1978 View Post
          Thanks for the write up! Wow you bought that FX-9590 .. I feel for your loss

          Yup.

          It boggles my mind ( I wanted to swear here but Once in a thread is enough) How you can take something so incredible, so precise, so well formed and so expensive to manufacture so gimped by software. When this shining, nay gleaming piece of incredible 32 nanometers with billions of transistors reaches its destination, the driver that talks and uses the features HARD CODED IN CHIP sits there scratching its out of Sync arse and sniffing its fingers not knowing where that smell is coming from..

          .. the smell is coming from my PC as there is no fan profile or clocking so everything is 100% or nothing.


          Donít worry with valve on the case AMD after a whole year and after sacking their entire German Linux driver team the year before that are waking up and smelling the burning silicon..

          in 2034 we WILL have a working AMD driver
          NOTE: MICROCENTER. Cost me what evarywharealse would've cost me the 8350... (or somewhere around $200, still overpriced, but I had a feeble hope going... still have an a10-7850k system to build, but I've not been pushing it as I need to xplant the 95 to a case that truly accomodates the water block cooler that I purchased for it, and the a10 will go in there, but I've lacked motivation from their godawful execution and generally crappy dismal weather this winter(140y records blown by and this spring is anything but springlike so far, so double negative on what my initial enthusiasm was for getting this done...).)

          Things a pig though, perf is/was crap at the desktop(windows/linux) even with working drivers...

          apparently the crappy ATI/AMD software guys that used to hang around the old crapalyst threads NEVAR took heart my commentary on how utter shit their drivers were v. what my desktop at that time(and what I still experience today) with nv were... sad... and even sadder that AMD can't get their thumb out and produce a competitive CPU arch, but just whinges about how big and bad intel is... (ODDLY enough Intel was just as big and bad back when they WERE competitive/bettarz... I give up. They can TRY to compete in the lowball range, but it aint gonna work, and APUs ROFLMAO they need to get their heads out of their asses as far as software goes before that'll work, and I expect by that time even Intel iGPUs will be seeing AMD/ATI in the rearview mirror... after all they're for all intents and purposes almost there already, and by almost I mean a few thin threads...)

          wonder how those water blocks will hold up with their feeble minded 295x? Best ATI GPUs can pull off today is that they're so f'ed up that they don't dare restrict gpgpu on their cards IF they want to sell any.

          Comment


          • #35
            Sorry for the DP, but I'm not seeing an edit post option, anyways, wow my last post got more mangled than I had thought(posted from one of my new notebooks, the Sager NP7330) when I fat fingered the touchpad and thought that I had recovered without really checking...

            Just to re-iterate though, the 9590 cost me at the time, the going rate of an 8350 and even had I just settled for an 8350 I still would've gone highend on the mb. Just picked ASROCK as it was one of the 3(IIRC) boards that passed supporting the 9590 and I'd never had an ASROCK board before(GIGABYTE(haswell), ASUS(3930k and some way older), TYAN(old celeries, dualies slotket type), BIOSTAR(4800+ x2, not bad for a cheaper board) and ABIT(tbird, this board had problemz, VIA chipset type)).

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by phill1978 View Post
              of course traditions are formed through many years of recurrent experience i.e AMD having poor drivers is definitely a tradition
              And that's also why NVIDIA is bashed so hardcore. No documentation, no (open source) drivers and very poor treatment of the community. I don't blame Linus and other developers period why they loathe NVIDIA.

              Comment


              • #37
                nVidia GPUs are crap.

                Have desktop PC with geforce 660 and can't even change resolution to proper fullHD. not xrandr, display GUI utilitzy or that nvidia settings panel thing. that never happened with ATI/AMD card. And I have AMD cards 5+ years. Second thing. Notebook with Intel+Geforce optimus thing. Well here intel graphics works wonderfully. but the I got better FPS with integrated graphics. When I run some game throuth optirun I got lower FPS and horrid input lag. That geforce GPU is totally useless and just drain battery.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
                  nVidia GPUs are crap.

                  Have desktop PC with geforce 660 and can't even change resolution to proper fullHD. not xrandr, display GUI utilitzy or that nvidia settings panel thing. that never happened with ATI/AMD card. And I have AMD cards 5+ years. Second thing. Notebook with Intel+Geforce optimus thing. Well here intel graphics works wonderfully. but the I got better FPS with integrated graphics. When I run some game throuth optirun I got lower FPS and horrid input lag. That geforce GPU is totally useless and just drain battery.
                  That's why many here are getting Nvidia cards or switching to them, right?

                  There's so many posts regarding the poor support of the binary drivers even though those should be easier to support compared to the FOSS drivers (which seem unsupported on two year-old hardware - VI aka R7/R9 etc. cards). Nvidia in Linux is close to the ones in Windows. Not so with the Catalyst.

                  I was looking at the R7 cards (mostly 260X and 265) but it looks like AMD is taking too long to support it as usual. This goes for the Catalyst drivers, too. 2D reportedly sucks. How can AMD not get a similar quality of driver comparable to the Windows one while Nvidia can? The work is separate between the binary and open source drivers yet there's complaints of bugs and the binary driver being unstable.

                  Glamor sounds like it's excessively buggy. So, with all these problems no matter if you use the blob or the FOSS driver, why use AMD and get headaches? Even if the Nvidia blob is a pain, it sound like the experience is more smooth when everything is set up properly. But, AMD doesn't support the Linux drivers despite $300+ cards being out over a year ago, already. :-(

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
                    nVidia GPUs are crap.

                    Have desktop PC with geforce 660 and can't even change resolution to proper fullHD. not xrandr, display GUI utilitzy or that nvidia settings panel thing. that never happened with ATI/AMD card. And I have AMD cards 5+ years. Second thing. Notebook with Intel+Geforce optimus thing. Well here intel graphics works wonderfully. but the I got better FPS with integrated graphics. When I run some game throuth optirun I got lower FPS and horrid input lag. That geforce GPU is totally useless and just drain battery.
                    I have a nvidia 780 GTX on desktop and to be honest I'm not that impressed with it's performance either. The closed nature of nVidia doesn't bother me but having one of the "best" GPU's chug in an old game does. Nvidia would of course blame the game for not being optimised for their hardware... But then why would I buy a faster GPU? I went nVidia just so that I could get good support in Linux but sigh what can I do really? To me it's lesser of two evils.

                    Any laptop that has a secondary power saving gpu is crud to me. Out of several, I have only ever seen ONE that did what it is supposed to do. Manufactures should simply just have a better power switch mode on the normal gpu rather than screw around with two gpu's. Surely they can come up with a throttling system that simply shuts cores down on the gpu itself.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                      So...

                      1. Everyone says we should kill Catalyst and focus on open source drivers

                      2. We hire developers and help make good open source drivers

                      3. We phase out Catalyst support for the older GPUs but keep improving the open source driver support for them

                      4. ... and you'll never forgive us for doing it

                      I don't think I understand.
                      As a high end nVidia user, I am very impressed that AMD provides the option of both binary and open source. Much like the distros that provide binary or open source package management. If anything AMD are showing nvidia how it can be done.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by narciso View Post
                        Is there any plan to give fglrx a better 2d performance so we can use composite desktops without performance loss? Again, I give the example of window resizing in ubuntu 14.04 with Unity DE.
                        That sort of stuff works fine on Gnome 3.12 with fglrx on ArchLinux (Antergos) -- as does the radeon driver.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Panix View Post
                          That's why many here are getting Nvidia cards or switching to them, right?

                          There's so many posts regarding the poor support of the binary drivers even though those should be easier to support compared to the FOSS drivers (which seem unsupported on two year-old hardware - VI aka R7/R9 etc. cards). Nvidia in Linux is close to the ones in Windows. Not so with the Catalyst.

                          I was looking at the R7 cards (mostly 260X and 265) but it looks like AMD is taking too long to support it as usual. This goes for the Catalyst drivers, too. 2D reportedly sucks. How can AMD not get a similar quality of driver comparable to the Windows one while Nvidia can? The work is separate between the binary and open source drivers yet there's complaints of bugs and the binary driver being unstable.

                          Glamor sounds like it's excessively buggy. So, with all these problems no matter if you use the blob or the FOSS driver, why use AMD and get headaches? Even if the Nvidia blob is a pain, it sound like the experience is more smooth when everything is set up properly. But, AMD doesn't support the Linux drivers despite $300+ cards being out over a year ago, already. :-(
                          I've got a R9 270X I just bought a month ago for $200 that runs perfectly fine in Unigine Valley in Linux with the FOSS drivers. Support isn't that bad. Glamor isn't excessively buggy, or buggy -- there are just codepaths that aren't optimized so rendering performance isn't nearly as high as it could be. Sticking with the FOSS driver gives better results, since it has significantly less bugs than Catalyst, and faster 2D rendering which benefits the desktop.

                          The issue I've had with NVIDIA drivers is I've never been able to figure out how to install one manually in Ubuntu. Even if you boot into single user mode, it doesn't seem to want to install correctly. At least with Catalyst you don't need to boot into single user mode to initiate the driver install phase -- just make a deb package from the installer and install it.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Why waste time with AMD?

                            Originally posted by mmstick View Post
                            The issue I've had with NVIDIA drivers is I've never been able to figure out how to install one manually in Ubuntu. Even if you boot into single user mode, it doesn't seem to want to install correctly. At least with Catalyst you don't need to boot into single user mode to initiate the driver install phase -- just make a deb package from the installer and install it.
                            I've installed NVIDIA drivers manually numerous times. The last I remember, I just stopped my X display manager, entered a pseudo-terminal, and typed in 'sudo ./install-nvidia.sh' or something similar and it stepped me through the process, no muss, no fuss. And the results after installation (compared to Catalyst) is ... priceless. I've never seen a need to boot into single user mode over years of manual installation. Perhaps that is your equivalent of pressing <crtrl>-<alt>-<f1>? I haven't manually installed an NVIDIA driver for a few years, though, as the Ubuntu support has been very, very good.

                            In any event, I refuse to buy power-hungry, hot, noisy cards with second-rate drivers for my OS of choice. So that means no ATI cards for any of the boxes I manage. Both NVIDIA and Intel do a better job.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by deppman View Post
                              I've installed NVIDIA drivers manually numerous times. The last I remember, I just stopped my X display manager, entered a pseudo-terminal, and typed in 'sudo ./install-nvidia.sh' or something similar and it stepped me through the process, no muss, no fuss. And the results after installation (compared to Catalyst) is ... priceless. I've never seen a need to boot into single user mode over years of manual installation. Perhaps that is your equivalent of pressing <crtrl>-<alt>-<f1>? I haven't manually installed an NVIDIA driver for a few years, though, as the Ubuntu support has been very, very good.

                              In any event, I refuse to buy power-hungry, hot, noisy cards with second-rate drivers for my OS of choice. So that means no ATI cards for any of the boxes I manage. Both NVIDIA and Intel do a better job.
                              Simply stopping X was never enough to install the NVIDIA drivers on my grandfather's machine. The only way to get the installer to work is to boot into single user mode from grub. Even then, after installing it again and again, I had problems getting it to boot correctly even after blacklisting nouveau drivers. I'm not the only one with the problem either, as one of my friends is currently having the exact same problem in one of his older machines with a similar model, the 8600 GTS. The only way I could ever get the NVIDIA driver to function in Ubuntu is to use the drivers that are already packaged in xorg-edgers and the official repositories. As for AMD, I've never had a problem installing Catalyst using the preferred method that creates a deb automatically, and installs via APT without needing to kill X or anything crazy like that. However, I see no point in installing Catalyst when the open source drivers handle the desktop smoother. I'd rather stick to using mesa.

                              Claiming AMD cards are power-hungry, hot and noisy is what amateur gaming kids like to say -- it has no evidence to stand upon and is therefore really a ignorant to claim. Don't like noise? Stop buying graphics cards with reference heatsink designs. Manufacturers use the same designs for both AMD and NVIDIA, so whatever noise you get on one is also the noise you'll get on the other. Power? They are roughly the same, which therefore means they produce an equivalent level of heat. The main difference other than architecture design is that AMD is packing more transistors per square mm than NVIDIA in SI, which means it costs less to manufacture their chips, and the transistors are more sensitive to heat than NVIDIA's larger, more expensive design. Heat's never been a problem though, as I've never had a problem with it. At this moment, a machine next to me with a $200 R9 270X has temperatures ranging from 24C at idle to 65C in a small micro-ATX case with the default case fans, depending on how heavy the load the graphics card may be under. Considering it is roughly equivalent in power to my 7950, that's a pretty good accomplishment. Most desktops don't even need half that level of power, let alone a quarter.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by mmstick View Post
                                Simply stopping X was never enough to install the NVIDIA drivers on my grandfather's machine....
                                I don't think your grandfather's machine is representative of the state of hardware and drivers today. How old is the board? Generally, NVIDIA have been very good at supporting boards for 3-4 years. I think that is quite generous, especially compared to the competition.

                                Originally posted by mmstick View Post
                                Claiming AMD cards are power-hungry, hot and noisy is what amateur gaming kids like to say -- it has no evidence to stand upon and is therefore really a ignorant to claim.
                                If you read as many video card reviews as I do, you can't help but come to that conclusion for the most recent ATI cards. Don't believe me? Check out any comparo over the last 12 months at a reputable site like Tom's Hardware or Anandtech or Phoronix. The ATI cards are almost always dinged on these attributes when compared to the NVIDIA competition.

                                Originally posted by mmstick View Post
                                Don't like noise? Stop buying graphics cards with reference heatsink design (... more ATI mitigation advice follows )
                                Yes, you can mitigate the mistake of buying an ATI card, but why bother? Of course, you might be that lucky person that buys just the right ATI card that (a) has support at launch, (b) has 100%+ the performance of the WHQL drivers, and (c) doesn't regress every 3-6 months. Unfortunately, over my 16 years of experience with Linux, I have never seen this combination with an ATI board.

                                Or you can do what industry does: buy from a vendor who has a proven track record of meeting all the above requirements on virtually all their hardware. I use Linux on 3 workstations for to earn all my income over multiple industries. I do not dual-boot. Failure - and tinkering - is not an option. I use NVIDIA cards for a reason.

                                I wish this weren't the case, because I always have been an AMD fan; but my 4.2GHz OC'd Phenom II Black is running with an NVIDIA GTX660 for a reason. I hope that AMD can give me a good reason to change that in the future.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X