Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Radeon RX 6800 Series Linux Performance

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by birdie View Post

    Other proprietary features of your PC you choose to turn a blind eye to: UEFI firmware, SSD firmware, NIC firmware, audio codec firmware and ... your AMD GPU firmware. By choosing NVIDIA you just have one more binary blob than when running AMD. Doesn't look too much different to me.
    go ahead and try to explain that NVIDIA is just another (proprietary/closed) binary blob to OpenBSD, lol, I dare 'ya.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by birdie
      Looks like lots of Open Source fans just cannot imagine their world without being bitches to their favourite companies and that's truly cringe worthy.
      What is funny is that we see you making a fool of yourself on TechPowerUp, but still you try to delude the issue with the argument that we are meant to be Open Source fanatics. The fact is, the whole web is laughing at your rhetorics.

      ​You think XFCE is the be-all, end-all of Desktop environment, you know what ? Amiga Workbench 1.3 is the only useable DE, and it doesn't support Xorg, so Xorg is irrelevant. Boom.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by omer666 View Post
        Literally no one said such a thing.
        People are just discussing which is the better option on Linux, and at the time of writing it turns out it's AMD.
        I've been running NVIDIA GPUs under Linux since the early 00s. I've got nothing to complain about. Sorry. Your post doesn't contain a single reason why AMD is better other than it doesn't require proprietary drivers to work and drivers openness alone is not an argument for absolute most people out there because this openness doesn't mean much if anything. Tell me, honestly, have you even read the AMD drivers source code for Linux? No? Do you you even know C and low-level programming to read the said code? No? So, what's wrong with NVIDIA then?

        Originally posted by omer666 View Post
        Wake up, KDE is now lighter than XFCE.
        I can prove you wrong in less than 3 minutes. Fire up a VM with any distro which supports KDE and XFCE, e.g. Fedora or Kubuntu/Xubuntu.

        Compare their disk/RAM use. KDE will require at the very least two times more RAM, and will net at least three times more disk reads and writes.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by scjet View Post

          go ahead and try to explain that NVIDIA is just another (proprietary/closed) binary blob to OpenBSD, lol, I dare 'ya.
          The post requires some actual content to be replied to. Yours is just empty. And don't shit on me with OpenBSD please - it's used on the desktop by probably 100 people in the entire world and no one care about this OS [on the desktop]. Also I'm pretty sure AMD drivers for OpenBSD are either rudimentary or they support very barebones 3D.

          AMD doesn't support OpenBSD in any shape or form. Next!

          Comment


          • #95
            @Michael: Do you have an idea why Mesa is showing strong results on 6800XT, but in most cases the inverse for 6800 (non-XT)? I expected the geometric mean to show a similar picture of Mesa vs. Pro for both models. I'm getting a 6800 (non-XT) soon. Planning to run it on Fedora 33.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by birdie View Post
              Sorry. Your post doesn't contain a single reason why AMD is better other than it doesn't require proprietary drivers to work and drivers openness alone is not an argument for absolute most people out there because this openness doesn't mean much if anything.
              Still trying to delude the issue, when I say people do you think I mean myself specifically?

              Originally posted by birdie View Post
              I've been running NVIDIA GPUs under Linux since the early 00s. I've got nothing to complain about.
              I do.

              Originally posted by birdie View Post
              Tell me, honestly, have you even read the AMD drivers source code for Linux? No? Do you you even know C and low-level programming to read the said code? No? So, what's wrong with NVIDIA then?
              I don't, and certainly never pretended I did. Just my humble, dumb consumer-oriented view. I want better integration, I want full KMS support, I want to be able to use whatever graphical server I see fit. When I run Wayland on Intel drivers on a decade-old laptop, it's like night and day. VSync in Nvidia control panel is simply broken and it just never works on the desktop or in-game. There is a growing gap between Nvidia and the technologies in use right now on the Linux desktop.

              Originally posted by birdie View Post
              I can prove you wrong in less than 3 minutes. Fire up a VM with any distro which supports KDE and XFCE, e.g. Fedora or Kubuntu/Xubuntu.
              Compare their disk/RAM use. KDE will require at the very least two times more RAM, and will net at least three times more disk reads and writes.
              So is this fake news?

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by omer666 View Post
                Still trying to delude the issue, when I say people do you think I mean myself specifically?



                I do.


                I don't, and certainly never pretended I did. Just my humble, dumb consumer-oriented view. I want better integration, I want full KMS support, I want to be able to use whatever graphical server I see fit. When I run Wayland on Intel drivers on a decade-old laptop, it's like night and day. VSync in Nvidia control panel is simply broken and it just never works on the desktop or in-game. There is a growing gap between Nvidia and the technologies in use right now on the Linux desktop.


                So is this fake news?
                Your issue was seemingly solved years ago and seemingly it wasn't even caused by NVIDIA drivers.

                I'm just calling for modesty. It doesn't really help when large swathes of Linux fans are shitting on NVIDIA left and right instead of being humble and trying to make them cooperate. You see, hostility only provokes hostility.

                Speaking of this Forbes tidbit - I'm not sure where Xubuntu's huge RAM usage comes from. I certainly cannot replicate that with Fedora where XFCE is considerably more frugal than KDE. Also, XFCE doesn't create huge temporary files in ~/.cache - last time I installed KDE a few months ago I had literally hundreds of megabytes of various cache files created by KDE. And don't get me started on ~/.config which becomes a total mess once you run KDE.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by birdie View Post
                  Your issue was seemingly solved years ago and seemingly it wasn't even caused by NVIDIA drivers.
                  The answer is you wrong. Faults can have 2 or more causes. One of the causes is still in Nvidia known issues just now worked around.
                  https://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/...ownissues.html
                  "libGL DSO finalizer and pthreads"
                  This is a garbage collection problem. Mesa in 2019 did quite a bit of work finally fixing theirs in most cases.


                  Originally posted by birdie View Post
                  Speaking of this Forbes tidbit - I'm not sure where Xubuntu's huge RAM usage comes from. I certainly cannot replicate that with Fedora where XFCE is considerably more frugal than KDE.
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrvJOXypAbk

                  Serous-ally when did you last test with what. 5.17 KDE memory usage dropped a hell of a lot. Once you get to KDE 5.17 vs XFCE 4.14 on most distributions start up memory usage is almost the same but after running stuff XFCE leaks and gets worse than KDE.

                  Originally posted by birdie View Post
                  Also, XFCE doesn't create huge temporary files in ~/.cache - last time I installed KDE a few months ago I had literally hundreds of megabytes of various cache files created by KDE. And don't get me started on ~/.config which becomes a total mess once you run KDE.
                  I am kind to think here a few months ago was at least 6 months to a year as in before 5.17 KDE memory handling clean up or you are using like Fedora 31 that has you stuck still on 5.16 KDE. XFCE beating 5.16 KDE would be expected. XFCE beating KDE 5.17 and newer not expected any more its more that its expected KDE over long term usage to win for now over XFCE. That is KDE 5.17 and newer on X11 version.

                  Yes kde does create a few more files but its also a more feature rich desktop. Its interesting how the work that Gnome and KDE have done to bring Wayland support to their desktop has resulted in them fixing up a lot of memory issues so reducing their memory footprint by a lot. The difference in startup memory foot print between KDE 5.16 and 5.17 100-300 megs (yes the difference depends on distribution configuration) reduction in memory usage right off the start line this has basically closed the gap up between XFCE and KDE in memory usage in all the different distributions.

                  Really the reality here it turns out that having a very feature complete desktop does not equal having to use stupid amounts of ram. It also turns out items like XFCE where you are giving up features for the idea that you will save in memory are not granting that when put head to head with a feature rich desktop memory usage optimised.

                  This problem is going to get worse for Xfce. As KDE and Gnome start using systemd user mode version more they are going to start using cgroups to split tasks so that background tasks will get cut off from cpu time and active window will be able to get a bias to get more CPU time. So not only are they pulling down their memory usage they are putting the foundations in place for better responsiveness by better allocation of system resources.

                  Also Wayland versions of KDE and Gnome are also getting a memory and cpu footprint saving as well.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by birdie View Post

                    The post requires some actual content to be replied to. Yours is just empty. And don't shit on me with OpenBSD please - it's used on the desktop by probably 100 people in the entire world and no one care about this OS [on the desktop]. Also I'm pretty sure AMD drivers for OpenBSD are either rudimentary or they support very barebones 3D.

                    AMD doesn't support OpenBSD in any shape or form. Next!
                    I didn't say OpenBSD was supposed to be friendly to any proprietary/unfriendly/closed sourced binary blobs, like Nvidia, and why should they be ?!
                    However, OpenBSD does in fact support amdgpu, although it does lag behind it's Linux\FreeBSD source's ...
                    Last edited by scjet; 21 November 2020, 10:39 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Michael, could be more specific about version of Mesa used? 20.3-devel is not very specific. I checked the table and it says git-442f48f , but if this is the commit I am thinking of, it was merged into Mesa master at 2020-10-15 (the commit itself is even older of course). So that would mean you used over month-old Mesa 20.3-devel build.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X