NVIDIA Makes The PhysX 5.1 SDK Open-Source

[piotrj3]

https://www.reddit.com/r/ManjaroLinu...driver_update/
https://unix.stackexchange.com/quest...ideo-and-audio

Look ma! I can also cherry pick posts and responses to prove my ePenis is the biggest of them all! There are plenty of examples out there on both camps. Linux is more supported by AMD than Nvidia; that does not make said support flawless.



So? I do not do this. Feature is useless for my use case. So why should I pay a premium for this? I just want to play games, not train a neural network 24/7.



According to that link the 3070 Ti is only ~25-60% faster than the 6700 XT. That is not nothing, but it's not 110% faster and thus justify the cost. The 6700 XT gives better price/perf for 3D content creation judging between those two cards. It also does this while consuming ~60% of the power. Is it the best cost/perf card for content creation specifically? Probably not.

Ray tracing in games, however, is nothing more than a gimmick. I am a gamer; not a content creator. Ray tracing is not very useful for my use case; it is certainly not worth the increase of 110% of the cost.

Here is a dirty little secret; most people with a PC *doesn't* run Photoshop. Or Blender. Or OBS Studio. For these, AMD is clearly the superior choice to run Linux on.



There are examples of long running bugs on the Nvidia side too. How about Wayland being outright broken on Nvidia for several years, for instance? Or Nvidia still not being GL 4.6 conformant?

Nvidia got lucky that the fix was easily identifiable and easily fixable last time. The current hardware issues with the 4090 power delivery does not exactly scream quality either to me...

Not 25-60% faster, 250% faster. eg 9.09 sec vs 32.16 sec is more then 3 times as fast. Nvidia is openGl 4.6 conformant according to khnosos group site ages before AMD and Intel. But whatever floats your lies.

https://www.khronos.org/conformance/adopters/conformant-products/opengl#submission_175

[piotrj3]

All AMD has
1. Open source driver good for only gaming. Slightly better compatibility than nvidia.
2. Better wayland support and integrates better with Linux desktop in general.

AMD is shit in almost all other aspects compared to nvidia in Linux. Heck, Even Intel is beating equivalent amd gpu in blender.

This hurts the most on linux especially. Because when average strong GPU user on windows is gamer, there is disproportionally way more users on Linux who use strong GPU for non gaming related scenario (video encoding/transcoding, gpu compute, blender etc.)

[marlock]

you forgot crypto... AMD's dGPU perf/W and power efficiency are generally better, hence crypto's strong preference (though in fairness they end up buying everything from everyone, they just usually go AMD first in their buying order after crunching the return on investment numbers)

and AMD poaching all gaming consoles except the nintendo switch is not "slightly" better for gaming, it's quite a statement... that's related to their APUs being much better than Intel equivalents in max graphics performance, equivalent in cpu perf, and great in power efficiency (and of course Nvidia having no x86-64 APUs, only dGPUs)

and there is also VM servers that strongly rely on linux opensource driver features poorly supported by Nvidia for multiseat GPU

and AMD's opensource driver gave servers earlier support for tweaking GPU behaviour via CLI which is relevant in some server spaces

meanwhile gaming on PCs is not all favourable to AMD either... Nvidia has been generally faster to support recent features in their drivers - most often than not hidden behind some anti-interop shenanigans but also new features in Vulkan (though AMD having opensource drivers gave them some major wins by allowing 3rd-party to help, like Valve contributing ACO)

in short, there is no clear winner, period... and AMD would definitely be better served by increasing their driver development efforts, while Nvidia would definitely be better served by being more opensource-friendly in their driver development efforts... neither is at 100% but the pain points for each are pretty clear and it's their own responsability in both cases for not being better

[wertigon]

Not 25-60% faster, 250% faster. eg 9.09 sec vs 32.16 sec is more then 3 times as fast. Nvidia is openGl 4.6 conformant according to khnosos group site ages before AMD and Intel. But whatever floats your lies.

https://www.khronos.org/conformance/...submission_175

My mistake, was looking at the Mesamatrix which lists nvc0 as lacking gl_spirv. But whatever.

If I phrase it like this then, perhaps you understand:

I have $1000 to spend on building a Linux based gaming rig to my nephew. Please advice the best Radeon rig vs GeForce rig I can build for this.

[piotrj3]

My mistake, was looking at the Mesamatrix which lists nvc0 as lacking gl_spirv. But whatever.

If I phrase it like this then, perhaps you understand:

I have $1000 to spend on building a Linux based gaming rig to my nephew. Please advice the best Radeon rig vs GeForce rig I can build for this.

Mesa matrix is nouveau (nvc0 is not Nvidia propertiary driver)...

If you make primarly gaming machine for nephew without anything else and in rather budget scenario (no 4k, no raytracing), actually AMD right now is better performance/price. And that is only reason why you should essentially pick it for him. Open source drivers won't matter for him (I doubt he gonna compile his own kernel in which case dealing with Nvidia modules is more pain). Compute probably won't matter either. But i guess nephew will be strongly annoyed everytime his friends will play a game he cannot play on linux due to some anticheat.

[wertigon]

If you make primarly gaming machine for nephew without anything else and in rather budget scenario (no 4k, no raytracing), actually AMD right now is better performance/price.

Not just better price/perf, it's like no contest at the moment. My nephew recently got a 1440p screen and now his games are way too slow on what he has. An upgrade is due and budget only allows for $1000. I'm sorry but not everyone has endless supplies of money lying around.

So, looking at reviews I would need, at the very least, a 3060 Ti or 6600 XT, but preferably a 6700 XT or a 3070 Ti for the headroom. Cheapest 3060 Ti is $400 and cheapest 3070 Ti is $600. Meanwhile I can get a 6600 XT for ~$250 and a 6700 XT for $350. With AMD I can get a full Core i5 13600K with 32 GB of RAM (admittedly DDR4) and 6700 XT for below $1000.

Pretty soon it looks like I don't have to choose between open drivers and performance anymore, and how an intelligent fella like you can't see how that is a benefit to consumers and professionals alike frankly confuses me. As for gaming on Linux, it is here to stay, thanks to Proton and Steam Deck.

[drakonas777]

All AMD has
1. Open source driver good for only gaming. Slightly better compatibility than nvidia.
2. Better wayland support and integrates better with Linux desktop in general.

AMD is shit in almost all other aspects compared to nvidia in Linux. Heck, Even Intel is beating equivalent amd gpu in blender.

This hurts the most on linux especially. Because when average strong GPU user on windows is gamer, there is disproportionally way more users on Linux who use strong GPU for non gaming related scenario (video encoding/transcoding, gpu compute, blender etc.)

These statements are valid, but made a bit in the vacuum. Absolute majority of linux users do not do professional GPGPU workloads, so from the pragmatic practical point of view good systemic/distribution support out of the box (wayland etc.) and decent gaming performance (for Proton users basically) are precisely what matters the most in the most of use cases. GamersTM don't use linux. Professionals also (and if they do, they use NVIDIA anyway). So basically what you both are saying is AMD is shit in some niche cases under linux, which are important for very few. That's fine, those few can buy NVIDIA products and use mainstream non-bleeding edge distros and live happy life.