Any Arch users advice on choosing a graphics card..?

[Hans]

You are really the first who prefers fglrx binary over nvidia binary.

I didn't say that. The nvidia binary just isn't perfect either. I just like AMD/ATI's oss policy and the fact that they make better cards. Its that simple actually :-)

[energyman]

Panix, whenever someone speaks up and says the hardware/software are working for them you make sarcastic comments about the uselessness of "works for me" responses. After a while I think people stop responding to you.

I don't really understand why you are agonizing over the purchase like this. If you feel more confident going with an NVidia product then just buy one.

the best thing, 'works for me' are considered worthless 'I have trouble' is seen as valid evidence. Even when the trouble is a severe case of PEBCAC.

[Panix]

It's certainly your right to choose what you want to buy. But I recommend picking a small subset of cards, figuring out what you want to use them from (and thus what the card/drivers should support) and then checking whether this is supported.

I tried but from my perspective, a lot of mixed reports on what works/doesn't work and general confusion (that is, for me!)

Right now, you're waging a holy war on things you have never even used based on some internet forum posts.

Yeah, that is somewhat accurate... I surrender.

You can always buy a card, see if it works, and if it doesn't give it back and get your money back.

If I buy locally. But, then it's not a good price and limited choice. I tend to order online so sending a card back is a PITA.

Like I said, if you want VDPAU, you need nVidia. If you don't care about open source, you need nVidia. If you want to update your binary blob every time there is a change in xorg and kernel, then you need nVidia.

If you would like an open source solution, you need ATi. You need to check whether the drivers support what you need, or will support it soon (like Evergreen), and then go for it. Nouveau will probably never reach the state of ATi and Intel drivers, and nVidia will not have decent open 3d drivers for a long time.

If you decide to try ATi, get a distro with good driver support (like the latest Fedora) and drive away. If it doesn't work, return the card. Don't write about what you think would happen based on some Ubuntu forum post from 2009.

C'mon...you really think I don't know how to read posts and assess whether it's recent or not? I at least try to read ones from 2010. I even know how to search posts and choose the most recent ones. I might even type it the model number of the card (4850, 4770, 5770, 5850 etc.) to obtain posts of a user's experience with a specific card. If I complain or raise a concern, I at least try to have it relevant. It's not like I WANT to spread FUD. I don't consider myself a Nvidia 'Fanboy' or prefer Nvidia. I just hope to avoid buying a card and then having the same or similar complaints as some others.

I am leaning towards an ATI card anyway. I figure if I buy one that's popular enough, I could sell it or put it in another machine. I just have to decide whether its' a 4000 series or the newer Evergreen. Video and 3D are my priorities with gaming not so much. I can use Windoze for that. I just want half decent video and 3D capabilities. I don't want to have to boot up Windoze to use GoogleEarth or 3D applications if possible. I prefer FOSS drivers like anyone else but I am also practical and consider myself in the camp of using whatever 'works' for the task you want to do.

[Panix]

Panix, whenever someone speaks up and says the hardware/software are working for them you make sarcastic comments about the uselessness of "works for me" responses. After a while I think people stop responding to you.

I don't really understand why you are agonizing over the purchase like this. If you feel more confident going with an NVidia product then just buy one.

I don't know why it's so bad to ask or prefer a bit more info than '...works for me.' I don't mind that type of affirmation that someone's not having trouble but it helps when there's extra but detailed info added. I would think that would apply to any problem/issue, not just ATI drivers.

[IsawSparks]

What you shouldn't do, is to choose a graphic card on the basis of xvba. Cmon, nobody has use of graphic accelerated decoding. The cpu decodes just fine. If someone are saying different, they might have a slow cpu or are trying to decode blueray rip movies (which you should run on a blueray player anyway).

Sorry, but that's just rubbish. Why use the CPU to decode HD video if the GPU does a good job and has specific hardware to improve the quality of the decoding?

Also, why waste CPU clock cycles on video when it's got better uses elsewhere in the system?

CPU doesn't decode 'just fine' if image quality is a concern, which it often is with regard to HD video. Being able to see the video in its proper profile with 1:1 transfer is a much better experience than if it's pushed through a codec/player combo which have to make compromises to give smooth rendering.

HD Video in the correct profiles just gives a much better experience via VDPUA/VAAPI than any CPU driven codec.

MythTV, XBMC and various other Media Player alike solutions for Linux pretty much negate your point of view that people should only be watching bluray rips on a bluray player, let alone any other forms of HD video. I use Linux via my 32" TV. My PC IS my bluray player.

Honestly, I've never heard such a load of balderdash in an effort to excuse ATI's awful video playback in fglrx.

I've used both and I wholeheartedly recommend Nvidia, unless FOSS drivers are a main concern. When it comes to closed source drivers, Nvidia has ATI beat in Linux at every level. Hell, even Intel beats ATI in Linux in many cases, not least of which is stability.

Now excuse me, I'm off to watch Men in Black @ 1080P in SMPlayer with 3% CPU usage in effect.

[pingufunkybeat]

Now excuse me, I'm off to watch Men in Black @ 1080P in SMPlayer with 3% CPU usage in effect.

Heh, I've watched 1080P movies in SMPlayer, on open drivers. 70% of one of my 4 cores is really not an argument.

But if you're into BluRay movies, then you have other problems, namely, BluRay discs do not work under Linux unless you download closed software to rip them to your harddrive, optionally shove them into an mkv, and then play them 45 minutes later.

Which brings the question -- why should you spend 45 minutes ripping a disc when Windows can play it more smoothly, and will accelerate the playback too? Using BluRay discs as an argument when discussing LINUX drivers is very weird.

The fact is -- 3d performance, powersaving and OpenGL compliance are important issues. Movie decoding is not.

[Panix]

Heh, I've watched 1080P movies in SMPlayer, on open drivers. 70% of one of my 4 cores is really not an argument.

But if you're into BluRay movies, then you have other problems, namely, BluRay discs do not work under Linux unless you download closed software to rip them to your harddrive, optionally shove them into an mkv, and then play them 45 minutes later.

Which brings the question -- why should you spend 45 minutes ripping a disc when Windows can play it more smoothly, and will accelerate the playback too? Using BluRay discs as an argument when discussing LINUX drivers is very weird.

The fact is -- 3d performance, powersaving and OpenGL compliance are important issues. Movie decoding is not.

You didn't finish the sentence. You should have included, "...not for you." I am pretty sure some Linux users in here don't touch Windows. Or they don't want to touch Windows. I don't know how they do it but that's their decision. What do you want them to do?

[pingufunkybeat]

Why not touch Windows if BluRay is so important to you and the playback is so much better?

If you are willing to suffer through the BluRay ripping process under Linux
(which in the early days included flashing your drive, downloading a set of cracked keys and risking breaking your drive for good) just to avoid Windows, why wouldn't you "suffer" a processor core having some more CPU load just to avoid binary drivers? That's surely a much smaller sacrifice?

In short, I don't understand why not using binary blobs is zealotry, but refusing to use Windows is not zealotry.

Everybody draws the line at a different place. But going on about not using windows, and then insisting that you should install a drm-infested binary driver to keep your processor slightly cooler is a bit strange to me.

[mugginz]

In short, I don't understand why not using binary blobs is zealotry, but refusing to use Windows is not zealotry.

On a purely non zealot level, you can run a Linux system with blobs as get great performance, etc. Without the blobs, sometimes you cant.

There's a good reason to use blobs if you want to run a Linux box.

If the entire Linux platform can't perform a task, then you need to start looking at other platforms. Linux will deal with bluerays these days.

If the open drivers can't perform a task, then you need to start looking at blobs.


On a slightly zealot level, running Microsoft's operating system is in a completely different boat to running nVidia's or MAD's closed driver.

I don't think the nVidia company is in the same toilet that Microsoft is, and obviously from an open source stand point, AMD isn't nowhere near the bathroom.

[pingufunkybeat]

I don't think the nVidia company is in the same toilet that Microsoft is, and obviously from an open source stand point, AMD isn't nowhere near the bathroom.

Now, that's funny