Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: NVIDIA Wins Over AMD For Linux Gaming Ultra HD 4K Performance

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brad0 View Post
    Can you make yourself sound like anymore of a douchebag?
    I let readers decide who is the douchebag master here.
    I am personally at my best, douchely speaking, but would be honored if you accept to train me.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Passso View Post
    I let readers decide who is the douchebag master here.
    I am personally at my best, douchely speaking, but would be honored if you accept to train me.
    I couldn't possibly reach your level even if I tried my best and had a lot of help. No comparison what so ever.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Passso View Post
    Plus, in the best case what is the goal of spending a lot of $ on a brand new AMD top card if you have to wait 1 year to get descent performance with OSS driver? The next generation will already be there...

    AMD dooms itself on Linux with those messy drivers, the only solution for them is to put work and money... or keep saving money by leaving behind 2% of market, commercially this is far to be stupid.

    From a consumer side, NVidia is and will remain for long the only choice!

    Concerning the arguing about the article title: benchmarks prove it, you may find a counter-example in the mass but generally "NVIDIA Wins Over AMD For Linux Gaming Ultra HD 4K Performance". Point.
    TBH I find a lot of the discussion quite irrationnal.

    1- I donít change my graphics card like I change shirt, if I get a graphics card, I prefer to think of it as something that will still perform reasonably well 3 or 4 years from now, or else, I would get a console, because that way Iím sure that games will be guaranteed to work with the same hardware for its lifetime.
    2- because Iím looking at long term, the fact that the driver isnít perfectly optimized now doesnít bother me, I take it that the card has a potential to reach a better framerate in a given game. For that reason, itís nice to see the HD7950 in this benchmark. Because these drivers are better optimized, it shows what a R9 290X could reach when drivers get optimized too. Given that the cardís hardware has much more raw power, I can extrapolate what the card will be able to do.
    3- ďThe Radeon R9 290 was running the speed between an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 and GTX 770 graphics cards, much slower where it should be for this $400+ Hawaii GPU if the Catalyst driver was in proper shape.Ē ZOMG it was only running at 110 FPS ! LAAAG !Ö The only thing I care for is if the card will be running the game smooth at 60 FPS, anything above is useless, and serves only to say ďI have the biggestĒ. By the time games require the cardís full potential, the driver will probably be optimized and be able to handle these tasks.


    Given these, saying Nvidia is the only option is laughable at best. As far as Iím concerned, I have a Radeon HD6850 that runs extremely well with the open source drivers, while I used to have lots of trouble with my former nvidia card and its hideous proprietary blob. The card allows me to run the games Iím playing smoothly at full HD resolution, not bad for a card from 2 generations ago.

    The way I see things, the R9 290X looks like a decent card to run current games, it has a potential to be much faster than that, which means it will probably run the future games well too.

    Any card that runs current games at 4K resolution smooth (ie, above 60*FPS) is a winner IMO, in this case, there is no winner, just 2 viable options, AMD being the most interesting one for me because of its open source drivers.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    101

    Default

    It's better not to buy things for their potential, i'm still waiting for a proper Opencl fix on AMD cards since 2011 the only thing we received so far are promises...

    Next time I'll buy something that actually works and not something that could work.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sdar View Post
    It's better not to buy things for their potential, i'm still waiting for a proper Opencl fix on AMD cards since 2011 the only thing we received so far are promises...

    Next time I'll buy something that actually works and not something that could work.
    Thatís not what I said, specifically, I wasnít talking about features, but performance which is not quite the same thing. Usually when new hardware gets released it doesnít always work great on release day. When I got my HD6850 the 7XXX series were already out, but the radeonSI driver was really at an early stage, not even a year later the 7XXX have decent performance, I guess itís a matter of months before the R9 completely blow nVidia out of the water.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sdar View Post
    It's better not to buy things for their potential, i'm still waiting for a proper Opencl fix on AMD cards since 2011 the only thing we received so far are promises...

    Next time I'll buy something that actually works and not something that could work.
    I think you'll love the upcoming drivers:

    http://devgurus.amd.com/thread/16016...t=240&tstart=0

    (Look at the end of the thread)

    Seems like the fix is entered and confirmed to be working. The drivers needs to pass QA before it comes out though...

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vein View Post
    I think you'll love the upcoming drivers:

    http://devgurus.amd.com/thread/16016...t=240&tstart=0

    (Look at the end of the thread)

    Seems like the fix is entered and confirmed to be working. The drivers needs to pass QA before it comes out though...
    It's not the first time they claimed to have a fix for this issue, and ["...Unfortunately, the driver we expected to release this week did not pass the QA process..."] so there's no fix yet, and i'm not going to thrust on something i can't test myself.

    Even if they managed to fix this in the next 14.7 drivers how i'm going to thrust a company that need so many YEARS to fix an issue?

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Quebec
    Posts
    4

    Default

    I bought a ASUS PB287Q and I can't get 60Hz at 4k resolution. xrandr only shows 30Hz. Are you doing anything special to get it work at 60Hz ?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brad0 View Post
    I couldn't possibly reach your level even if I tried my best and had a lot of help. No comparison what so ever.
    You, brad, are the obvious douchebag. NVIDIA is far superior to AMD, but Intel while being lower performance does work in some cases if you don't care about high performance. I personally care more about how well my computer works (i.e. no problem with the proprietary driver that works really well) than how GPL'd my driver is.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Arctic circle, Finland
    Posts
    303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ikus060 View Post
    I bought a ASUS PB287Q and I can't get 60Hz at 4k resolution. xrandr only shows 30Hz. Are you doing anything special to get it work at 60Hz ?
    For starters, might be silly question, but are you using display port. There aren't gpu that support hdmi2.0 yet(which means max Hz over hdmi is 30Hz for uhd resolution). So to get 4k@60Hz you need display port cable and graphics card with display port 1.2 output.

    If you have connect it in display port, dump /var/log/Xorg.0.log somewhere i.e. pastebin.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •