If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
No announcement yet.
High-End NVIDIA GeForce vs. AMD Radeon Linux Gaming Comparison
"... AMD's unwillingness to supply Phoronix with higher-end GPU review samples ..."
So why don't you ask AMD for a R7 240 and R7 250?
Maybe because he can buy those, but then must buy concurent parts too .
Who knows why AMD does not give those high end samples to Michael, maybe because very interesting fact lately that AMD high end parts actually cost more in USA then in rest of the world for some reason... why this happens is probably best question for economists .
I use Linux on all my PC's 100% of the time, and have done so since 1998. I build or purchase all my PC's and have spec'd linux PCs for a few dozen others. Since around 2006, it became clear that NV was serious about providing the most stable and best performing drivers and cards for Linux. My brother, who dual boots Linux as a hobby, always gets ATI boards. And then he wonders why he keeps getting surprising regressions or lousy 2D performance. I've given up trying to help outside of suggesting he stop buying ATI until they fix their drivers. Even Intel has better Linux support overall.
I wish it weren't so - ironically AMD processors have always had good to great Linux support, and my home workstation runs a AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition over clocked at 4GHz. But the graphics board is a NVidia GTX 660, and my workstation at the office has a GTX 650ti boost, and they provide great reliability and performance at 2560x1440 and 3840x1200 respectively. Ubuntu support for these cards has been very good. Steam games like Portal 2 or Dota 2 run great at 2560x1440. From what I've seen performance is comparable or better than on Windows.
If someone gave me a PC with an ATI card, the first thing I'd do is replace it with a $150 GTX 750ti or better. Its just not worth the hassle. Now I have to email a link to this article to my brother...
While I appreciate and understand what you're saying with regards to performance, VRAM is now a factor in high end gaming. A few of the modern games recommend 3gb to have high res textures on Windows. I just purchased a 770, and went for the 4gb version exactly for this reason.
While 2gb may be enough for Linux today, if you're forward thinking then 4gb is going to last you longer than 2gb (at whatever performance level you're going for as long as it's fairly high end). 2gb would already limit you if you want high-res textures on some recent games on Windows. That is if what the devs say is true, I haven't ruled out the possibility that they said that to shift AMD cards, many of which have 3gb, whereas most Nvidia other than the 780 go for 2gb, with a 4gb option.
Yeah, most likely that 4gb card will play nicely with 4k.
Tesseract! It was worked on for PTS integration recently.
As Michael pointed out, that is CPU limited. However I believe the OP was more whining that there wasn't any modern AAA games that were tested and as usual the reason for that is that most do not provide benchmarking capability.