XFX Radeon HD 4350 DDR2 1GB PCIe will it work on ubuntu

[crazycheese]

I have narrowed my choices to XFX for brand and the following cards:
4770
4850
5770

I would choose the 5770 except for three issues:
1) limited to fglrx drivers and questionable support even in Ubuntu 10.04
2) price - it's a bit more expensive than the other two cards
3) I prefer choice and versatility - card won't be supported in Fedora 13 afaik because of more recent xorg version and recent kernel? I'm just speculating and yes, that's a bit of a brief summary and probably doesn't tell the whole story. But, the fact remains, the card won't work in Fedora 13 for a while?

I want to dual boot these operating systems:
Windows XP (sorry), Windows 7 (later...sorry), Ubuntu 10.04 (sorry to Ubuntu haters...lol) and Fedora 13 (hello???)

I have Debian on my laptop...

I'm just wondering whether I should stay safe and go with a 4770 ($100) or 4850 ($130) or WAIT for wider support and go for the 5770 ($170)

I prefer a newer gen. card but the HD 4xxx series of cards are cheaper and should be supported in even the most recent distros (regardless of distro and xorg/kernel ver.?)? Also, I can utilize the card with either the fglrx or FOSS driver?

I'm trying to switch to ATI so help me out there?

Maybe these annoying questions will help someone else more or less contemplating the same thing?

I checked the wiki for the ATI GPU comparison chart so I think these choices are sufficient although a little pricey depending on your p.o.v. I'll do 3D, 2D (movies etc.), *maybe* some gaming but I want the card capable regardless...

CPU is Q6600 and Corsair PSU (520w) so I think the rest of the hardware is sufficient for any of the video cards...

I would filter HD4850 out just upfront. The problem is: it is older chip(as the rest of 4xxx) and has GDDR3 memory. HD4770 is newer technology chip(the only in HD4xxx that has nm technology from HD5xxx) with 40nm manufacturing.

HD4770 is slower than HD4850 up to 20%. But, HD4850 eats up to double wattage 140W(almost as nv8800GT) vs 80W for that 20%. You can overclock HD4770 to match 4850(but not in linux yet, unless you want to reflash VGA Bios, which is risky). Also HD4770 idles 20W - 4850 40W.

Check this out(powerdrain for just gfx card): http://ht4u.net/reviews/2009/amd_rad...70/index11.php

So if thats not you who is paying electricity bill and you have no problem with heat of HD4850 go for it, its decent card.

Otherwise the obviously smarter choice is HD4770, performing a bit less without overclock, yet draining much less and being no furnace.

For 100 vs 140 its like christmas. In my country HD4770(95?) was more expensive than HD4850(85?), and pretty hard to find.

And if you want strictly perfomance that would be HD4870 and up. Lots of heat, lots of drain and lots of 3D.

HD5770 is awesome chip too, HD4770 taken to OpenGL4.0, but of course your only default choice for 3D and accelerated 2D would be buggy fglrx.

I have chosen 4770 with intention to upgrade to 5770 once it will be supported by opensource driver(accel 2D and 3D, powermanagement).

[Hans]

I have narrowed my choices to XFX for brand and the following cards:
4770
4850
5770

I would choose the 5770 except for three issues:
1) limited to fglrx drivers and questionable support even in Ubuntu 10.04
2) price - it's a bit more expensive than the other two cards
3) I prefer choice and versatility - card won't be supported in Fedora 13 afaik because of more recent xorg version and recent kernel? I'm just speculating and yes, that's a bit of a brief summary and probably doesn't tell the whole story. But, the fact remains, the card won't work in Fedora 13 for a while?

I want to dual boot these operating systems:
Windows XP (sorry), Windows 7 (later...sorry), Ubuntu 10.04 (sorry to Ubuntu haters...lol) and Fedora 13 (hello???)

I have Debian on my laptop...

I'm just wondering whether I should stay safe and go with a 4770 ($100) or 4850 ($130) or WAIT for wider support and go for the 5770 ($170)

I prefer a newer gen. card but the HD 4xxx series of cards are cheaper and should be supported in even the most recent distros (regardless of distro and xorg/kernel ver.?)? Also, I can utilize the card with either the fglrx or FOSS driver?

I'm trying to switch to ATI so help me out there?

Maybe these annoying questions will help someone else more or less contemplating the same thing?

I checked the wiki for the ATI GPU comparison chart so I think these choices are sufficient although a little pricey depending on your p.o.v. I'll do 3D, 2D (movies etc.), *maybe* some gaming but I want the card capable regardless...

CPU is Q6600 and Corsair PSU (520w) so I think the rest of the hardware is sufficient for any of the video cards...

I would bye the newer 5xxx series, even though the support is not that good in fglrx yet. Why? Because from my point of view, fglrx is improving very fast and stable 5xxx should arrive soon. With the latest fglrx drivers (10.5), many problems regarding wine and xvba have been solved.

Actually I can't give you an example where my fglrx fails anymore. Kinde boring stable actually. oh there is one point though. Better 2D support. But as far as I know, it will arrive next month with 10.6?

[Panix]

I would filter HD4850 out just upfront. The problem is: it is older chip(as the rest of 4xxx) and has GDDR3 memory. HD4770 is newer technology chip(the only in HD4xxx that has nm technology from HD5xxx) with 40nm manufacturing.

HD4770 is slower than HD4850 up to 20%. But, HD4850 eats up to double wattage 140W(almost as nv8800GT) vs 80W for that 20%. You can overclock HD4770 to match 4850(but not in linux yet, unless you want to reflash VGA Bios, which is risky). Also HD4770 idles 20W - 4850 40W.


HD5770 is awesome chip too, HD4770 taken to OpenGL4.0, but of course your only default choice for 3D and 2D would be buggy fglrx.

I have chosen 4770 with intention to upgrade to 5770 once it will be supported by opensource driver(accel 2D and 3D, powermanagement).

Where do you get that the TDP/Total wattage of the 4850 is 140w? The sources I find illustrate it to be 110w. I am confused. I read that the 4850 runs a bit hotter than 4770 or can be louder (as the fan must run faster to cool it down, perhaps?). But, I thought the power consumption is close to the 4770 if a bit more.

You make good points for the 4770, however. Yet, the 4850 comes in 1GB versions while the 4770 is only 512mb, I think.

I would bye the newer 5xxx series, even though the support is not that good in fglrx yet. Why? Because from my point of view, fglrx is improving very fast and stable 5xxx should arrive soon. With the latest fglrx drivers (10.5), many problems regarding wine and xvba have been solved.

Actually I can't give you an example where my fglrx fails anymore. Kinde boring stable actually. oh there is one point though. Better 2D support. But as far as I know, it will arrive next month with 10.6?

I suppose I could wait for support and just use the latest Ubuntu or OpenSUSE (whatever distro seems to work best with it). Eventually, Evergreen cards will work in the latest distro versions as it will be supported by ATI/AMD, right? I mean, the support will be more extensive eventually.

But, that forces me to wait more when certain/various distros 'update' until ATI/AMD catch up with that series of card. With my Nvidia card, I don't have to. With an 'older gen' of card (HD 4xxx) of ATI card, I don't have to. Even the newer Fermi, I might not have to? But, I prefer Evergreen cards over those, definitely.

With the Evergreen 5770 about $40 more than the 4850 and $70 more than the 4770, it's a bit hard to justify. But for a cooler running newer card, it is way easier to pay the extra cost. I prefer XFX since I'd get the lifetime warranty so it might have a bit more value - and maybe easier to upgrade.

Thanks for the info and 'hands on' experience you guys have with your cards! Although, I hate to admit I dual boot with Windows, at least I could go to that if the Evergreen card 'struggles' in certain Linux operating systems. That's a last resort, though, that I'd rather not have to consider.

[Panix]

i have a 4670 1gb vram and wana upgrade to an 5570 2GB vram (120?) (in my point of view its not important to have the fastest card but to have much vram and the newest openGL version is very important.)

the question is why buy an outdates card?

your problem is you can't imagine the future.

10-5 fixes a lot of wine problems for me.. and i'm sure the 10-6 driver fixes the most of problems for hd5000 card's!

more openGL fixes direct2d as a standart 3D acceleration very very fast!

and i know abaut the viedeo acceleration it comes to HD5000 cards to! (i don't know 10-6 or 10-7)

and yes the R600g driver will become a R800g driver to! openGL3 will come to the opensource driver to! and a shader based viedeo acceleration to..

why you can't imagine the future?

Only two reasons to get an outdated, older generation card:
1) price - the better outdated cards are cheaper averaging about $100 or so..4850 for e.g.
2) ATI support in Linux - really slow but the outdated cards are already supported... not sure if it's extensive but the support is more extensive than support for Evergreen cards!

If the support was quicker and more up to date, I'd go Evergreen, no hesitation... one can't even use this card in Fedora 13 yet save for VESA drivers!

I want to 're-do' my HDD in my main machine, my desktop, and install Lucid Lynx, Fedora 13 and maybe OpenSUSE. Any more experimenting, I'll do in Virtualbox since I'll devote a 100+GB partition for Ubuntu.

But, ATI won't (or can't) invest enough resources for drivers in Linux so the wait for driver development is SOOOOO slow. It's sad that the poorly designed Fermi cards are supported way faster than Evergreen cards.

I can't predict the future but I know what's going to happen if I get an Evergreen card: I'll be forced to boot Windoze 50+% of the time on my desktop.

Then, I'll be using Linux on my laptop... can't do much about what GPU is in there, right?

[crazycheese]

Where do you get that the TDP/Total wattage of the 4850 is 140w? The sources I find illustrate it to be 110w. I am confused.

In the link, Ive posted, dude...
Look at "Leistungsaufnahme Graphikkarte" - Graphics card power consumtion table.
Thats Furmark tests, they crash burn GPU to 110% extreme load.
The dudes at HT4U have once crashburned 9800GT Green(that I had) so it crashed because it requested over >75W from PCIE at their test, but officials never expected it to be over that value.
Thats are values that are total max that graphic card consumes alone! (not system!)
Load:
AMD Radeon HD 4770 (Default-K?hler) - 82W(80W claimed officially)
Radeon HD 4850 - 148W(140W claimed officially)
Radeon HD 4870 1024 MB - 187W

I suspect HD4830 lies in 110W range.
If you look at perfomance(weaker<stronger):
HD4830<HD4770<HD4850<HD4870


Idle(what you do 99,3% of time):
AMD Radeon HD 4770 (Default-K?hler) 32W

Radeon HD 4850 42W
I suspect HD4830 to be 40W.

Other than this, the standard cooler drains to much.
My card didnt have that "reference cooler" and I have replaced it with more efficient Arctic Cooling Accelero l2 pro(cost 9?).
I cannot hear it, works with 7v connector(you can attach 12v), gpu(messed in winblows) never goes over 50C.
Well, AC Acc l2 was designed for 9800gt with its 140W.

Of course 4870 is faster, but the price, the heat, the watts. Its basically 4770 with more shaders, same gddr5, but gpu itself older technology.

I read that the 4850 runs a bit hotter than 4770 or can be louder (as the fan must run faster to cool it down, perhaps?). But, I thought the power consumption is close to the 4770 if a bit more.

No 4850 eats much much more. Firstly less efficient gddr3. Second - prev.gen fabrication process. Third - more electronics on PCB. Even 4830 drains more than 4770.

You make good points for the 4770, however. Yet, the 4850 comes in 1GB versions while the 4770 is only 512mb, I think.

Ha, no, Im not a marketing guy That happens when you spend whole night researching gpus detailed.

I suppose I could wait for support and just use the latest Ubuntu or OpenSUSE (whatever distro seems to work best with it). Eventually, Evergreen cards will work in the latest distro versions as it will be supported by ATI/AMD, right? I mean, the support will be more extensive eventually.

But, that forces me to wait more when certain/various distros 'update' until ATI/AMD catch up with that series of card. With my Nvidia card, I don't have to. With an 'older gen' of card (HD 4xxx) of ATI card, I don't have to. Even the newer Fermi, I might not have to? But, I prefer Evergreen cards over those, definitely.

With the Evergreen 5770 about $40 more than the 4850 and $70 more than the 4770, it's a bit hard to justify. But for a cooler running newer card, it is way easier to pay the extra cost. I prefer XFX since I'd get the lifetime warranty so it might have a bit more value - and maybe easier to upgrade.

Thanks for the info and 'hands on' experience you guys have with your cards! Although, I hate to admit I dual boot with Windows, at least I could go to that if the Evergreen card 'struggles' in certain Linux operating systems. That's a last resort, though, that I'd rather not have to consider.

Evergreen still has no good opensource support. Closed source, yes. But then, you better go with nvidia. They are the masters of closed source, haha. I went with AMD only because of opensource drivers. I have bought high-perf. card and quad core cpu from them, only because of this. Call me a consumer with brains(rare, no?), if you wish.

[crazycheese]

It's sad that the poorly designed Fermi cards are supported way faster than Evergreen cards.

Thats because you are running windows drivers on linux with nvidia. Thats why they cannot open the source, cannot support Xorg properly and handle linux as second-class; but release fast and on the same graphical tests you can reliably mess linux always fall 20% behind winblows (unless its cpu intensive,ie kernel, then linux will win). Well, it is currently fastest 3D solution, but it lacks (and will always lack) any point where linux can actually use its main feature to go in lead.

If you look at software performance(ie recoding, databases, processing etc) linux LEADS on opensource apps.

In 3D it is slowed down by:
a) a company that handles it as second-class system, never opens source and hence hardware+linux software solutions always fall behind winblows with performance to have no choice to go up or on-par(no one can improve it beside them, and they simply dont care).

b) a company that does opensource, but .. ugh,.. slooow. It still carries its closed source driver, that is many times worse than (a), unless workstation tasks. A company that cannot deside? Well at least it does(together with some community effort) opensource and its 3D is usable.

c) a company that does only opensource in linux. But its opensource drivers performance is messed to be 5-6 times slower than on closed source winblows. Wtf, no? And it has no hardware capable of something average 3D currently.

Great 3D situation, no? The choice is yours. I went (b) and abadoned (a).

[crazycheese]

With the Evergreen 5770 about $40 more than the 4850 and $70 more than the 4770, it's a bit hard to justify.

If you do not want Opengl4 effects in linux(any apps using them?) and can live with opengl3.2 - go 4770. This is the only difference to my knowledge.

[deanjo]

Call me a consumer with brains(rare, no?), if you wish.

We call them "sucker with money to blow".

[Hans]

the hd3000 and hd4000 do have a broken openCL gpu-cache! (its emulatet by software over the vram/ram)

if you wana use openCL in the future only HD5000 brings you full speed!

but only hd5850 and up do have full 64bit power!

Where do you have this information from?
HD3xxx isn't even supported with opencl.

[crazycheese]

We call them "sucker with money to blow".

We?? Seriously, you all guys should seek psychologist attention.