NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Linux Gaming Performance

[Grinness]

There's one intrinsically wrong thing about open source and it's its apologists who 1) choose to overlook huge bugs and never ending issues 2) keep on attacking closed source software without doing anything for open source other than leaving comments like "NVIDIA SUCKS" everywhere 3) pretend that everything could be open sourced - and that, sir, is not going to happen ever.

In short, Open Source fans are what makes (the) Open Source (movement) look horrible. Instead of exercising modesty, admitting innate issues, they scream off the top of their lungs that "CLOSED SOURCE SOFTWARE AND COMPANIES WHICH CREATE SUCH SOFTWARE SUCK!!!" Luckily 99.99% of people out there will never hear this crap.

There is no concept of "rolling enough", if you need the latest bits of AMDGPU, in the latest kernel or the latest Mesa, or the latest LLVM (etc).
Arch provides the latest kernel within 1 week, simlarly Manjaro -- if Fedora does not do that ... change distro, if you want to use linux with the latest open stack bits for your hardware
You compile your kernel, Great! But also you need to do it often, at every release -- relevant for your hardware
This is the model essentially -- aka: what you "buy" with open stack hardware.

There rest of your comment.... I am not sure what you say apart from: "I am sorry for you".
It seems you take personally stuff that are not at all.
Here i find a lot of ppl bragging about superiority of closed source/Nvidia when this is non-factual (from support, to features, just check all the phoronix post on performance of the general open source 3d stack)

You want closed source, you like the higher FPS from NVIDIA?
Fine. Use Nvidia on LInux, on Windows, on OSX, on FreeBSD ...
But do not complain if feature X is not available for your hardware or it has stability problems or the open source model does not fit your hardware vendor.

LInux and the general GNU stack is OPEN SOURCE
Whatever you like it or not

[birdie]

There is no concept of "rolling enough", if you need the latest bits of AMDGPU, in the latest kernel or the latest Mesa, or the latest LLVM (etc).
Arch provides the latest kernel within 1 week, simlarly Manjaro -- if Fedora does not do that ... change distro, if you want to use linux with the latest open stack bits for your hardware

Enough of this rolling crap unless you're OK with Linux being reserved for the technological elite in which case I rest my case because in my imagination I've envisioned Linux to be a contender for the desktop not a niche OS for the geeks. That's not an OS, that's a fucking lego for wasting one's time. And with that I'm done with you. Let's just meet in twenty years and see which OS you're using. I bet it's gonna be Windows or Mac OS or something like that unless you're OK being grey and senile and compiling the kernel just to make your GPU work. LMAO.

[Grinness]

Enough of this rolling crap unless you're OK with Linux being reserved for the technological elite in which case I rest my case because in my imagination I've envisioned Linux to be a contender for the desktop not a niche OS for the geeks. That's not an OS, that's a fucking lego for wasting one's time. And with that I'm done with you. Let's just meet in twenty years and see which OS you're using. I bet it's gonna be Windows or Mac OS or something like that unless you're OK being grey and senile and compiling the kernel just to make your GPU work. LMAO.

The only part I agree is : in your imagination.

The rest of your post is completely illogical.
You are writing on:
* a website for "geeks"
* discussing "closed vs open source" ... argument for "geeks"
* prising a video card company on a specific product, for "geeks"

The normal "Joe" has a low/mid-range computer/laptop where all is supported.

I have been using Linux since 1999 ...
My dad (77) asked me to get rid of Windows 10 because full of adds when he got his mid-range acer laptop, now he uses a rolling release (Manjaro) and he is able to maintain it with no issues, on his own.
My entire family uses Linux (my old parents have 2 laptops and 1 desktop with linux)

.... guess what OS I will use in 10 years?

If you do not know what you buy, nobody can really help you ....

Best of luck to you

[wberrier]

Let's just meet in twenty years and see which OS you're using. I bet it's gonna be Windows or Mac OS or something like that unless you're OK being grey and senile and compiling the kernel just to make your GPU work. LMAO.

I bet ~25 years ago that I would be using Linux today, where then, IMO, it was a much riskier bet I think betting the same today is a much safer bet.

Also, I'm sure you know, you can get drivers from AMD, they just only support a limited number of distributions. I don't think compiling the latest kernel is your only option for getting a working recent AMD card.

In any case, IMO, if you feel better served with an Nvidia product and support, that's great! Competition is good. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia didn't follow this driver model eventually...

[chocolate]

You are writing on:
* a website for "geeks"
* discussing "closed vs open source" ... argument for "geeks"
* prising a video card company on a specific product, for "geeks"

That shouldn't stop us from putting our feet on the ground form time to time and evaluating whether the libre ecosystem is where it needs to be.
Suppose I'm a techie who reads Phoronix. I'm exposed to articles stating that AMD is submitting patches for their next-gen GPUs for the soon to be released Linux kernel. By the time the card launches on the market, the latest Linux kernel has "some" support for it.
I choose to invest in the latest card, knowing that perhaps the software won't immediately be optimized fully, but will at least be usable.
Then the card crashes while idling on a graphical desktop shell, or exhibits some other quirks like failing to resume after suspending the machine... bugs of this kind have been reported by early adopters running the latest available kernel versions at time of purchase.

AMD is doing a good job, and I personally believe some things can be forgiven due to RDNA being a new architecture requiring vast software enablement work; then there are distributions... that typically do a horrendous job at informing the user and offering/presenting them a choice for running the latest software stack to support a given piece of hardware, if necessary.
The experience could be better for enthusiasts/early adopters.
I joined the RDNA club with some delay, and my experience has been superb with the latest kernel and Mesa, but e.g. on Pop!_OS I had to enable two PPAs to achieve that, while Fedora with updates was already OK.
Gamers who love to run the latest and greatest do exist, and some of them are giving "Linux" a try because it looks cool and they saw it on an LTT video on YouTube. They find their card occasioanally crashing with no explanation/desktop notification upon reboot, we lose them for a gooood while. And they shouldn't have to get crafty with the CLI either, that's where distributions should come to the aid of AMD.

In the spirit of the Debian Manifesto, problems should not be talked down or hidden away. That mindset is the first thing any community should strive to achieve. And pardon me, but saying that problems cannot be discussed among "geeks" is, to me, talking it down.

[Grinness]

That shouldn't stop us from putting our feet on the ground form time to time and evaluating whether the libre ecosystem is where it needs to be.
Suppose I'm a techie who reads Phoronix. I'm exposed to articles stating that AMD is submitting patches for their next-gen GPUs for the soon to be released Linux kernel. By the time the card launches on the market, the latest Linux kernel has "some" support for it.
I choose to invest in the latest card, knowing that perhaps the software won't immediately be optimized fully, but will at least be usable.
Then the card crashes while idling on a graphical desktop shell, or exhibits some other quirks like failing to resume after suspending the machine... bugs of this kind have been reported by early adopters running the latest available kernel versions at time of purchase.

AMD is doing a good job, and I personally believe some things can be forgiven due to RDNA being a new architecture requiring vast software enablement work; then there are distributions... that typically do a horrendous job at informing the user and offering/presenting them a choice for running the latest software stack to support a given piece of hardware, if necessary.
The experience could be better for enthusiasts/early adopters.
I joined the RDNA club with some delay, and my experience has been superb with the latest kernel and Mesa, but e.g. on Pop!_OS I had to enable two PPAs to achieve that, while Fedora with updates was already OK.
Gamers who love to run the latest and greatest do exist, and some of them are giving "Linux" a try because it looks cool and they saw it on an LTT video on YouTube. They find their card occasioanally crashing with no explanation/desktop notification upon reboot, we lose them for a gooood while. And they shouldn't have to get crafty with the CLI either, that's where distributions should come to the aid of AMD.

In the spirit of the Debian Manifesto, problems should not be talked down or hidden away. That mindset is the first thing any community should strive to achieve. And pardon me, but saying that problems cannot be discussed among "geeks" is, to me, talking it down.

In general I agree with you.

But you also need to take into consideration the context, e.g.:

1. Are you a corporate buying server/desktop/laptop?
2. Are you a single/private user buying for home?

in the case of 1, surely you go with official/corporate support and you buy directly from a vendor providing guarantees (e.g. Lenovo, Dell). Hardware sold for corporate use is guaranteed to have fully supported components -- so the problem does not subsists

In the case of 2, you have 2 other options:

a. you just want machine with linux (because is fancy, or whatever) but you are not sure what to buy -- then you go to vendor (e.g. Lenovo, Dell desktop/laptop) and you have the assurance of all components are supported -- or you ask a "friend" -- see point b below
b. you know what you want and what you are buying (you are a "geek") -- this is your "safe" case (and in general what has always been over the years for home users also with Windows XP/Me/NT/2000/Vista/7/8/10/... and the various fancy hardware for 3d gaming, from Voodoo1&2 and after-- and possibly before)

There is definitely the problem of the "bazar" model -- open source projects release at different time points -- but this is somewhat under control with well-known release cycles (e.g. Kernel. Gnome, Mesa and others)

But the "Bazar" model is at the heart of the open source movement in general
It's what you "buy in", perfectible but still .... the beauty of the game

[chocolate]

There is definitely the problem of the "bazar" model -- open source projects release at different time points -- but this is somewhat under control with well-known release cycles (e.g. Kernel. Gnome, Mesa and others)

But the "Bazar" model is at the heart of the open source movement in general
It's what you "buy in", perfectible but still .... the beauty of the game

Yep, and it's an acceptable tradeoff, but then distributions should step their game up and work around the model's inherent deficiencies.
All the rest checks out.

So, the heart of the matter is... a user gets burned by their experience with early RDNA support, despite extensive bug reporting, which is already way more than the average user is probably willing to do, to the point they decide to ditch the new RDNA GPU for stable kernels and Nvidia GPUs with proprietary drivers. Justifiable? I don't know, I'm not here to judge. Understandable? Yes. The experience for early adopters is not ideal, and the fault does not lie entirely with AMD in this case, or hardware manufacturers in general, although of course even the latest kernels wouldn't have solved an RDNA customer's problems completely at day one.

You can align with software releases perfectly, be it Linux, Mesa or otherwise, and still have issues if a customer installs an LTS distro with months old hardware enablement.

We shouldn't settle for the message that "it's just the way the libre ecosystem works".

[Grinness]

We shouldn't settle for the message that "it's just the way the libre ecosystem works".

This comment section is gone completely off topic TBH.
I would prefer discussing FPS/Watt, anyhow.

the bazar vs cathedral argument has gone on forever.
IMHO, in general any environment that is the byproduct of the agglomeration of different independent components suffers of the same problem.
This is true from biological ecosystem, to the development of cities, hardware components (new CPUS. new motherboards, new GPUs often requiring new Bios/Firmware) ... and in the Windows world -- look at what happens when a new Windows (or OSX) version comes out, with all the partners (hardware/software) scrambling to pull together all the loose ends.

There are means to minimize the issue, and it will be minimized once hardware manufacturers (AMD in this case -- Intel has been doing this very well) learn how to better synchronise launch of new products with open-stack release cycles. Even the alleged Nvidia 1-day support (for any OS) is based on a beta driver that gets polished over multiple releases....

But the issues for early adopters will always be there, for any OS, any hardware component, any new and shiny software tool -- if we want to be realistic.