Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GeForce 700 vs. Radeon Rx 200 Series With The Latest Linux Drivers

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

  • mmstick
    replied
    Originally posted by deppman View Post
    I've installed NVIDIA drivers manually numerous times. The last I remember, I just stopped my X display manager, entered a pseudo-terminal, and typed in 'sudo ./install-nvidia.sh' or something similar and it stepped me through the process, no muss, no fuss. And the results after installation (compared to Catalyst) is ... priceless. I've never seen a need to boot into single user mode over years of manual installation. Perhaps that is your equivalent of pressing <crtrl>-<alt>-<f1>? I haven't manually installed an NVIDIA driver for a few years, though, as the Ubuntu support has been very, very good.

    In any event, I refuse to buy power-hungry, hot, noisy cards with second-rate drivers for my OS of choice. So that means no ATI cards for any of the boxes I manage. Both NVIDIA and Intel do a better job.
    Simply stopping X was never enough to install the NVIDIA drivers on my grandfather's machine. The only way to get the installer to work is to boot into single user mode from grub. Even then, after installing it again and again, I had problems getting it to boot correctly even after blacklisting nouveau drivers. I'm not the only one with the problem either, as one of my friends is currently having the exact same problem in one of his older machines with a similar model, the 8600 GTS. The only way I could ever get the NVIDIA driver to function in Ubuntu is to use the drivers that are already packaged in xorg-edgers and the official repositories. As for AMD, I've never had a problem installing Catalyst using the preferred method that creates a deb automatically, and installs via APT without needing to kill X or anything crazy like that. However, I see no point in installing Catalyst when the open source drivers handle the desktop smoother. I'd rather stick to using mesa.

    Claiming AMD cards are power-hungry, hot and noisy is what amateur gaming kids like to say -- it has no evidence to stand upon and is therefore really a ignorant to claim. Don't like noise? Stop buying graphics cards with reference heatsink designs. Manufacturers use the same designs for both AMD and NVIDIA, so whatever noise you get on one is also the noise you'll get on the other. Power? They are roughly the same, which therefore means they produce an equivalent level of heat. The main difference other than architecture design is that AMD is packing more transistors per square mm than NVIDIA in SI, which means it costs less to manufacture their chips, and the transistors are more sensitive to heat than NVIDIA's larger, more expensive design. Heat's never been a problem though, as I've never had a problem with it. At this moment, a machine next to me with a $200 R9 270X has temperatures ranging from 24C at idle to 65C in a small micro-ATX case with the default case fans, depending on how heavy the load the graphics card may be under. Considering it is roughly equivalent in power to my 7950, that's a pretty good accomplishment. Most desktops don't even need half that level of power, let alone a quarter.

    Leave a comment:


  • deppman
    replied
    Why waste time with AMD?

    Originally posted by mmstick View Post
    The issue I've had with NVIDIA drivers is I've never been able to figure out how to install one manually in Ubuntu. Even if you boot into single user mode, it doesn't seem to want to install correctly. At least with Catalyst you don't need to boot into single user mode to initiate the driver install phase -- just make a deb package from the installer and install it.
    I've installed NVIDIA drivers manually numerous times. The last I remember, I just stopped my X display manager, entered a pseudo-terminal, and typed in 'sudo ./install-nvidia.sh' or something similar and it stepped me through the process, no muss, no fuss. And the results after installation (compared to Catalyst) is ... priceless. I've never seen a need to boot into single user mode over years of manual installation. Perhaps that is your equivalent of pressing <crtrl>-<alt>-<f1>? I haven't manually installed an NVIDIA driver for a few years, though, as the Ubuntu support has been very, very good.

    In any event, I refuse to buy power-hungry, hot, noisy cards with second-rate drivers for my OS of choice. So that means no ATI cards for any of the boxes I manage. Both NVIDIA and Intel do a better job.

    Leave a comment:


  • mmstick
    replied
    Originally posted by Panix View Post
    That's why many here are getting Nvidia cards or switching to them, right?

    There's so many posts regarding the poor support of the binary drivers even though those should be easier to support compared to the FOSS drivers (which seem unsupported on two year-old hardware - VI aka R7/R9 etc. cards). Nvidia in Linux is close to the ones in Windows. Not so with the Catalyst.

    I was looking at the R7 cards (mostly 260X and 265) but it looks like AMD is taking too long to support it as usual. This goes for the Catalyst drivers, too. 2D reportedly sucks. How can AMD not get a similar quality of driver comparable to the Windows one while Nvidia can? The work is separate between the binary and open source drivers yet there's complaints of bugs and the binary driver being unstable.

    Glamor sounds like it's excessively buggy. So, with all these problems no matter if you use the blob or the FOSS driver, why use AMD and get headaches? Even if the Nvidia blob is a pain, it sound like the experience is more smooth when everything is set up properly. But, AMD doesn't support the Linux drivers despite $300+ cards being out over a year ago, already. :-(
    I've got a R9 270X I just bought a month ago for $200 that runs perfectly fine in Unigine Valley in Linux with the FOSS drivers. Support isn't that bad. Glamor isn't excessively buggy, or buggy -- there are just codepaths that aren't optimized so rendering performance isn't nearly as high as it could be. Sticking with the FOSS driver gives better results, since it has significantly less bugs than Catalyst, and faster 2D rendering which benefits the desktop.

    The issue I've had with NVIDIA drivers is I've never been able to figure out how to install one manually in Ubuntu. Even if you boot into single user mode, it doesn't seem to want to install correctly. At least with Catalyst you don't need to boot into single user mode to initiate the driver install phase -- just make a deb package from the installer and install it.

    Leave a comment:


  • oleid
    replied
    Originally posted by narciso View Post
    Is there any plan to give fglrx a better 2d performance so we can use composite desktops without performance loss? Again, I give the example of window resizing in ubuntu 14.04 with Unity DE.
    That sort of stuff works fine on Gnome 3.12 with fglrx on ArchLinux (Antergos) -- as does the radeon driver.

    Leave a comment:


  • b15hop
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    So...

    1. Everyone says we should kill Catalyst and focus on open source drivers

    2. We hire developers and help make good open source drivers

    3. We phase out Catalyst support for the older GPUs but keep improving the open source driver support for them

    4. ... and you'll never forgive us for doing it

    I don't think I understand.
    As a high end nVidia user, I am very impressed that AMD provides the option of both binary and open source. Much like the distros that provide binary or open source package management. If anything AMD are showing nvidia how it can be done.

    Leave a comment:


  • b15hop
    replied
    Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
    nVidia GPUs are crap.

    Have desktop PC with geforce 660 and can't even change resolution to proper fullHD. not xrandr, display GUI utilitzy or that nvidia settings panel thing. that never happened with ATI/AMD card. And I have AMD cards 5+ years. Second thing. Notebook with Intel+Geforce optimus thing. Well here intel graphics works wonderfully. but the I got better FPS with integrated graphics. When I run some game throuth optirun I got lower FPS and horrid input lag. That geforce GPU is totally useless and just drain battery.
    I have a nvidia 780 GTX on desktop and to be honest I'm not that impressed with it's performance either. The closed nature of nVidia doesn't bother me but having one of the "best" GPU's chug in an old game does. Nvidia would of course blame the game for not being optimised for their hardware... But then why would I buy a faster GPU? I went nVidia just so that I could get good support in Linux but sigh what can I do really? To me it's lesser of two evils.

    Any laptop that has a secondary power saving gpu is crud to me. Out of several, I have only ever seen ONE that did what it is supposed to do. Manufactures should simply just have a better power switch mode on the normal gpu rather than screw around with two gpu's. Surely they can come up with a throttling system that simply shuts cores down on the gpu itself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Panix
    replied
    Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
    nVidia GPUs are crap.

    Have desktop PC with geforce 660 and can't even change resolution to proper fullHD. not xrandr, display GUI utilitzy or that nvidia settings panel thing. that never happened with ATI/AMD card. And I have AMD cards 5+ years. Second thing. Notebook with Intel+Geforce optimus thing. Well here intel graphics works wonderfully. but the I got better FPS with integrated graphics. When I run some game throuth optirun I got lower FPS and horrid input lag. That geforce GPU is totally useless and just drain battery.
    That's why many here are getting Nvidia cards or switching to them, right?

    There's so many posts regarding the poor support of the binary drivers even though those should be easier to support compared to the FOSS drivers (which seem unsupported on two year-old hardware - VI aka R7/R9 etc. cards). Nvidia in Linux is close to the ones in Windows. Not so with the Catalyst.

    I was looking at the R7 cards (mostly 260X and 265) but it looks like AMD is taking too long to support it as usual. This goes for the Catalyst drivers, too. 2D reportedly sucks. How can AMD not get a similar quality of driver comparable to the Windows one while Nvidia can? The work is separate between the binary and open source drivers yet there's complaints of bugs and the binary driver being unstable.

    Glamor sounds like it's excessively buggy. So, with all these problems no matter if you use the blob or the FOSS driver, why use AMD and get headaches? Even if the Nvidia blob is a pain, it sound like the experience is more smooth when everything is set up properly. But, AMD doesn't support the Linux drivers despite $300+ cards being out over a year ago, already. :-(

    Leave a comment:


  • AnonymousCoward
    replied
    nVidia GPUs are crap.

    Have desktop PC with geforce 660 and can't even change resolution to proper fullHD. not xrandr, display GUI utilitzy or that nvidia settings panel thing. that never happened with ATI/AMD card. And I have AMD cards 5+ years. Second thing. Notebook with Intel+Geforce optimus thing. Well here intel graphics works wonderfully. but the I got better FPS with integrated graphics. When I run some game throuth optirun I got lower FPS and horrid input lag. That geforce GPU is totally useless and just drain battery.

    Leave a comment:


  • brad0
    replied
    Originally posted by phill1978 View Post
    of course traditions are formed through many years of recurrent experience i.e AMD having poor drivers is definitely a tradition
    And that's also why NVIDIA is bashed so hardcore. No documentation, no (open source) drivers and very poor treatment of the community. I don't blame Linus and other developers period why they loathe NVIDIA.

    Leave a comment:


  • cutterjohn
    replied
    Sorry for the DP, but I'm not seeing an edit post option, anyways, wow my last post got more mangled than I had thought(posted from one of my new notebooks, the Sager NP7330) when I fat fingered the touchpad and thought that I had recovered without really checking...

    Just to re-iterate though, the 9590 cost me at the time, the going rate of an 8350 and even had I just settled for an 8350 I still would've gone highend on the mb. Just picked ASROCK as it was one of the 3(IIRC) boards that passed supporting the 9590 and I'd never had an ASROCK board before(GIGABYTE(haswell), ASUS(3930k and some way older), TYAN(old celeries, dualies slotket type), BIOSTAR(4800+ x2, not bad for a cheaper board) and ABIT(tbird, this board had problemz, VIA chipset type)).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X