Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best bang for buck with open source drivers.

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

  • duby229
    started a topic Best bang for buck with open source drivers.

    Best bang for buck with open source drivers.

    Hey guys, I currently have an x1950pro that has been locking up within 5 minutes of gameplay. It happens in both Windows and Linux, so I think it is a physical hardware problem.

    I need to know what the best "bang for buck" card is available right now that either 1: currently has open source drivers, or 2: will very freakin soon have open source drivers.

    I was looking at one of these cards here...

    ASUS Radeon HD 4770 EAH4770/HTDI/512MD5 Video Card - Retail (EDIT: This card just went out of stock while I was writing this post.)
    OR
    HIS Hightech Radeon HD 4850 H485FN512P Video Card - Retail
    OR
    SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 4830 100265HDMI Video Card - Retail

    EDIT: OR

    SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 3870 100225L Video Card - Retail


    From benches that I've seen the 4850 should be just a little bit faster than the 4770. What do you guys think? Is there anything else I should be looking at instead? The idea is to stay as close to 100 bucks as possible. Is there anything out there at this price range that also includes some memory cooling? Also I've looked into what exactly the difference between 512MB, and 1GB does for these cards and the truth is not much. Within 3% on some benches while most are essentially tied. So no need to worry about memory amount, I'm sure the benches speak for themselves.

    Also what is the benefit of going with a 4000 series? Would a 3000 serires at a better price be a better idea?
    Last edited by duby229; 06-01-2009, 08:47 PM.

  • yesterday
    replied
    Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
    "If Linux had to ensure that it preserve a stable source interface, a new interface would have been created, and the older, broken one would have had to be maintained over time, leading to extra work for the USB developers. Since all Linux USB developers do their work on their own time, asking programmers to do extra work for no gain, for free, is not a possibility." I agree, he makes good points. Might make no sense whatsoever on a free as in gratis operating system. Possibly more so in a commercial opensource operating system.
    The benefit of this approach, regardless of the reasoning behind it, means that kernel and it's development is a lot more agile. It also in turn encourages in-tree participation, for the benefit of the kernel. Even a commercial open source OS can benefit from this.

    Leave a comment:


  • nanonyme
    replied
    Originally posted by einaudi View Post
    "If Linux had to ensure that it preserve a stable source interface, a new interface would have been created, and the older, broken one would have had to be maintained over time, leading to extra work for the USB developers. Since all Linux USB developers do their work on their own time, asking programmers to do extra work for no gain, for free, is not a possibility." I agree, he makes good points. Might make no sense whatsoever on a free as in gratis operating system. Possibly more so in a commercial opensource operating system.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
    Well, yes. Admittebly API has to be allowed to live and old versions of the API have to eventually be droppped. This simply because no sane person manages to predict every use scenario so the attempt for the API will be wrong. This has nothing to do with security holes though. So yes, I admit API has to go through changes (after having doing some conversing Elsewhere (tm)) as part of its natural evolution to better cope with tomorrow's challenges which simply weren't thought of yesterday.
    But yeah, I still stand by my claim that saying actual API changes due to security reasons makes no sense whatsoever. (FUD as in the sense that the reasoning you gave is not only false but it was directed towards the emotional core of every admin: security. It's a bit like drawing child porn card in an arbitrary network filtering conversation, really Drawing them randomly when they're not actually related to the matter at hand is meant to be a conversation killer and an "I Win" card)
    Security absolutely is an important reason to modify existing API's. I'm not saying its the only one, but I am saying that as an admin it is one of the reasons that I can relate to. As such that is the reason I mentioned security in the first place. I fully appreciate that there exists many usage scenarios, unfortunately I catn know all of them and can only relate what I know. In my field security is prime.

    I didnt intend it to be a conversation killer per se, but I did intend to get my point across efficiantly. We've been swapping posts now for too long in my opinion about something that neither one of us is going to change our minds on. For some reason that you still havent justified you think it is a great idea to keep around incomplete, broken, insecure, unstable, flawed, poorly designed API's that have no possibilty of being fixed and will be replaced anyways....Fine.... I'm perfectly ok with that. There actually exists such a thing that does exactly what you want. Its called winsxs.

    Leave a comment:


  • nanonyme
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    EDIT: And about dropping old and crusty API's that dont get used by in the kernel tree, That is a freakin fantastic idea. All I can say is that thank god I dont have a 16GB kernel.......... I hope and pray, yes pray, that Linux never develops its version of winsxs....
    Well, yes. Admittebly API has to be allowed to live and old versions of the API have to eventually be droppped. This simply because no sane person manages to predict every use scenario so the attempt for the API will be wrong. This has nothing to do with security holes though. So yes, I admit API has to go through changes (after having doing some conversing Elsewhere (tm)) as part of its natural evolution to better cope with tomorrow's challenges which simply weren't thought of yesterday.
    But yeah, I still stand by my claim that saying actual API changes due to security reasons makes no sense whatsoever. (FUD as in the sense that the reasoning you gave is not only false but it was directed towards the emotional core of every admin: security. It's a bit like drawing child porn card in an arbitrary network filtering conversation, really Drawing them randomly when they're not actually related to the matter at hand is meant to be a conversation killer and an "I Win" card)

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
    API's can't really have exploits, API *implementations* do. You can still fix the implementation while keeping the API as it was. You don't remove the function, you just make it safe. Your reasoning sounds pretty much like FUD. (let alone that many times the myth that the API gets changed only to fix exploits stays a myth and it seems it in most cases it just gets changed because stuff gets marked unused by main kernel tree modules, then eventually it gets dropped out altogether even though there might have been tons of stuff outside the main kernel tree that used it that simply never got integrated in the kernel tree)
    I never said that is the only reason broken API's get dropped, but I certainly do believe it is an important one. Now some people call everything they hear that they dont agree with FUD. You may or may not be one of those people, but I cant quite explain why you attempted to call my argument FUD. Was I trying to make you fear what I was saying? Was I trying to make you uncertain of what I was saying? Was I trying to make you doubt what I was saying? See I dont understand how in your mind FUD applies. Why would I purposely make you fear or uncertain of or doubt what I was trying to say?

    EDIT: And about dropping old and crusty API's that dont get used by in the kernel tree, That is a freakin fantastic idea. All I can say is that thank god I dont have a 16GB kernel.......... I hope and pray, yes pray, that Linux never develops its version of winsxs....
    Last edited by duby229; 07-05-2009, 11:44 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • King InuYasha
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    I'll be completely sure to stay 100% away from any and every closed driver. That'll never happen ever. No offense it's just that since everything else in the linux world is open source, there shouldnt be any exceptions ever. Personally I think that there should be some kind of flag that identifies closed source code and then makes it impossible for it to execute. Something like the NX bit except for use in blocking closed source code. I think the same kind of technology that identifies viral code could be adapted to identify closed code as well...
    There is a flag in the kernel to disable all non-GPL modules.

    Leave a comment:


  • einaudi
    replied
    in the argoment of stable api: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/stable_api_nonsense.html

    Leave a comment:


  • nanonyme
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    If you have an API with a function that is used by 20% of the applications that use that API, and later on find out that function can be used to exploit the system for something
    API's can't really have exploits, API *implementations* do. You can still fix the implementation while keeping the API as it was. You don't remove the function, you just make it safe. Your reasoning sounds pretty much like FUD. (let alone that many times the myth that the API gets changed only to fix exploits stays a myth and it seems it in most cases it just gets changed because stuff gets marked unused by main kernel tree modules, then eventually it gets dropped out altogether even though there might have been tons of stuff outside the main kernel tree that used it that simply never got integrated in the kernel tree)
    Last edited by nanonyme; 07-03-2009, 10:06 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
    Stable in this term pretty much means "does not change", I think. Stuff gets fixed behind the API, the API itself remains static. And yes, now you do know at least one. Solaris. Anyway, this is getting plenty offtopic, I just meant to reply to a post that there's a good reason nVidia kernel modules work with new Solaris kernel versions always...
    I peice of junk that doesnt change is still a peice of junk. If you have an API with a function that is used by 20% of the applications that use that API, and later on find out that function can be used to exploit the system for something, in a so called stable API that exploit canot be fixed without breaking compatibility with 20% of the applications that use the API......

    And sure I do now of a few stable APIs but the Solaris kernel definately is not counted as one of them. The thing that makes Solaris worthless for most people is its total utter lack of hardware support for some of the most common hardware on the planet. And even the few drivers it does have are mostly half-assed and broken on everything but the few revisions of the hardware that the developers had........

    EDIT: See thats why I like the GPL. I can actually look a the code and modify it to work with my hardware. Granted I'm not a programmer, but many other people are. The point is that through the GPL I can help improve the driver for my needs. I think in the end provided that enough interest exists it is possible t5o take a craptastic driver and turn it into an awesome example of the power of open source. We are seeing that right now with the open source ATi drivers.I think it could have been done quicker if ATi had committed itself more fully than it has, but it is there own loss not mine.
    Last edited by duby229; 07-01-2009, 05:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X