Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 22.04 LTS Changes Default For NVIDIA Driver Back To Using X.Org Rather Than Wayland

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

  • wertigon
    replied
    Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post

    Rearead what everyone else has said about implicit vs explicit sync and then come back. The tl;dr since Linux at least currently only supports implicit sync for every part of the stack there is a performance penalty if drivers have to implement manual workarounds for implicit sync (which is the main reason NVidia drivers are slower but its only for Wayland, with X11 since by design NVidia has much more control they don't have the same problem). The contrary is not true, i.e. if the Linux stack fully supported explicit sync than you can implement implicit sync without any performance penalty (which is why explicit sync is far superior).
    Yes, I did reread. I think this is pretty much monolithic vs microkernel debate all over again. Linux is still a monolithic kernel and that proved to be the superior option ,though there are still Microkernel enthusiasts out there. The argument is pretty much philosophical tech wankery, and while interesting academically, it does nothing to solve any problems.

    You, on the other hand, have yet to supply a sufficient reason why Nvidia cannot create a mesa driver since this is obviously what they have to do to stay competitive in the near term. Long term, Linux is open source. If you need explicit sync, create an explicit sync render path. It is that simple. Meanwhile, implicit sync will rule the roost for the foreseeable future.

    Leave a comment:


  • mdedetrich
    replied
    Originally posted by wertigon View Post

    Yes, it really is so technologically inferior that Mesa-based drivers on AMD Radeon cards are beating their Nvidia counterparts.

    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...rx6600xt-linux
    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...rx6500xt-linux

    If it was so technologically inferior as you claim Nvidia would be at least 10% better in each tier. Care to explain why it isn't?

    The only way to settle this properly though is to implement a mesa driver for Nvidia cards. But since we have already established that Nvidia doesn't really care about Desktop Linux, nor are unlikely to start caring anytime soon, well...
    Rearead what everyone else has said about implicit vs explicit sync and then come back. The tl;dr since Linux at least currently only supports implicit sync for every part of the stack there is a performance penalty if drivers have to implement manual workarounds for implicit sync (which is the main reason NVidia drivers are slower but its only for Wayland, with X11 since by design NVidia has much more control they don't have the same problem). The contrary is not true, i.e. if the Linux stack fully supported explicit sync than you can implement implicit sync without any performance penalty (which is why explicit sync is far superior).

    Leave a comment:


  • wertigon
    replied
    Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post

    You have been proven wrong many times. The Linux graphics stack (i.e. mesa/gbm) are using a design that is so outdated that NVidia drivers don't even support it anymore and thus gas been posted many times.
    Yes, it really is so technologically inferior that Mesa-based drivers on AMD Radeon cards are beating their Nvidia counterparts.

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite


    If it was so technologically inferior as you claim Nvidia would be at least 10% better in each tier. Care to explain why it isn't?

    The only way to settle this properly though is to implement a mesa driver for Nvidia cards. But since we have already established that Nvidia doesn't really care about Desktop Linux, nor are unlikely to start caring anytime soon, well...

    Leave a comment:


  • mdedetrich
    replied
    Originally posted by wertigon View Post

    The market is screaming for a working Wayland render path. Nvidia, thus far, cannot provide one. The only explanations I can find are that Nvidia are either incompetent, or are otherwise doing their best to exert willful malice. Would love to be proven wrong though.
    You have been proven wrong many times. The Linux graphics stack (i.e. mesa/gbm) are using a design that is so outdated that NVidia drivers don't even support it anymore and thus it has been posted many times.
    Last edited by mdedetrich; 26 April 2022, 06:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • birdie
    replied
    Originally posted by tildearrow View Post

    Didn't you say you wouldn't engage into any Wayland discussion anymore?

    Well then, what's this?
    I've not touched on Wayland in this topic in any shape or form. I have kept my promise. This is me arguing with people who are talking BS about completely orthogonal things.

    Leave a comment:


  • indepe
    replied
    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post

    I believe those numbers are approximately right under certain conditions. They aren't relevant to what you'd see in a car, though, because you'll never get perfect efficiency. That doesn't even take into account transmission costs - it requires less power to transmit electricity through a wire than it does to ship gas around on a truck to petrol stations, for example.

    There are so many possible variables it's really complex to get an actual good comparison, but I believe I've seen studies that show an electric car on pure coal power is still slightly better than a gas powered car - but it's close enough that it can tip either way very easily depending on numerous local factors. But if, for example, you get 50% coal power and 50% non-coal, it's pretty easily in favor of the electric car at that point.

    You've also done things unrelated to CO2 like transfer all the smog from cars out of the city, and transformed it into pollution around a power plant, where it can hopefully be better managed and is farther away from large population centers, which is presumably good for health.

    Anyway, there are certainly numerous ecological issues you can point to with electric cars if that's what you want to do. There needs to be a big focus on battery recycling and clean mining going forward.
    Also, times have already changed reagrding coal. For example in the US in 2021, on average coal is only 22% of "utility-scale electricity generation".
    Renewables (including hydro) are 20%, nuclear 19%, natural gas 38%.

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
    Basically, using gasoline and internal combustion engines is more environmental friendly than EVs and coal plants. And since it's basically established science that gasoline and internal combustion engines are bad for the environment, replacing them with EVs powered by coal that's 50-200% more dirty no matter how you fudge the numbers is clearly not the correct solution.

    Using green vehicles without creating green energy first is like putting a fresh coat of paint over black mold spores. You didn't fix anything; you just hid the problem from view.
    I believe those numbers are approximately right under certain conditions. They aren't relevant to what you'd see in a car, though, because you'll never get perfect efficiency. That doesn't even take into account transmission costs - it requires less power to transmit electricity through a wire than it does to ship gas around on a truck to petrol stations, for example.

    There are so many possible variables it's really complex to get an actual good comparison, but I believe I've seen studies that show an electric car on pure coal power is still slightly better than a gas powered car - but it's close enough that it can tip either way very easily depending on numerous local factors. But if, for example, you get 50% coal power and 50% non-coal, it's pretty easily in favor of the electric car at that point.

    You've also done things unrelated to CO2 like transfer all the smog from cars out of the city, and transformed it into pollution around a power plant, where it can hopefully be better managed and is farther away from large population centers, which is presumably good for health.

    Anyway, there are certainly numerous ecological issues you can point to with electric cars if that's what you want to do. There needs to be a big focus on battery recycling and clean mining going forward.
    Last edited by smitty3268; 25 April 2022, 09:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rclark
    replied
    There is a reason modern apps are written in C#, Python and Golang
    Interesting statement. In our industry it is C/C++ for most modern apps. Fortran is still used in our Energy Management system. Our vendor finally eliminated it for our current upgrade, so will be seeing it go away here. In my previous job though it was still highly used by the scientists and I bet still is. Python is used a lot now by our company. Use it for most everything that doesn't require critical timing or needs to be fast. Easy for the engineers, and computer programmers to maintain and use. C#? Not so much on either Linux or Windows. GoLang? Never used or heard of it being used (except by Google). Our IT department uses more VB than anything else which I intensely dislike but sometimes have to debug. Looking at one poll, Python is now #1, JavaScript #2, and Java number 3 (which surprised me as we don't use it around here). JavaScript drops to number 5 in IEEE poll ... All depends on the what your discipline is to how you rank language usage I suppose .
    Last edited by rclark; 25 April 2022, 09:15 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post

    Absolute most modern serious games require at the very least the GTX 1060 level of performance just for 1080p low settings and no one cares about your built-in GPUs, nor anyone takes them into account. Period. As for your desktop, web browsing, etc. built-in GPUs from a decade ago are more than enough.
    Exactly.

    Nobody is looking at gamers with the latest GPUs when deciding what basic desktop functionality is.

    It's cool that you only care about "serious gamers", but when the topic is about Gnome, KDE, XFCE, or whatever other desktop then that's rather pointless, just like talking about Intel igpus on a gaming topic would be.

    Those desktops are designed for use by the average non-gamer and their non-gamer hardware, and that's what they'll target.
    Last edited by smitty3268; 25 April 2022, 09:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • sabian2008
    replied
    Originally posted by wertigon View Post

    You seem to not really understand the meaning of "abandoned" here. "Abandoned" as in, no new features are going to be added. Will it still be maintained? Yes. Some companies have decade long support contract obligations to fulfill, after all. Does this mean XOrg has any kind of future? Not really, Xorg has about as much future as FORTRAN and COBOL. There is a reason modern apps are written in C#, Python and Golang.

    As for the link you posted, over half the merges from the last 2 years are Wayland or XWayland related. Did you even look at the content?
    Fortran is pretty much alive, with its latest standard being less than 5 years old https://fortranwiki.org/fortran/show/Fortran+2018. Hopefully one day there will be a simpler and more prototyping friendly language which can match its speed. For the time being, only Julia is a suitable candidate, and it still has years and tons of applications to prove its worth before you can declare Fortran antique.

    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post



    Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels
    Coal (anthracite) 228.60
    Coal (bituminous) 205.40
    Coal (lignite) 216.24
    Coal (subbituminous) 214.13
    Diesel fuel and heating oil 163.45
    Gasoline (without ethanol) 155.77
    Propane 138.63
    Natural gas 116.65
    Basically, using gasoline and internal combustion engines is more environmental friendly than EVs and coal plants. And since it's basically established science that gasoline and internal combustion engines are bad for the environment, replacing them with EVs powered by coal that's 50-200% more dirty no matter how you fudge the numbers is clearly not the correct solution.

    Using green vehicles without creating green energy first is like putting a fresh coat of paint over black mold spores. You didn't fix anything; you just hid the problem from view.
    Even if those figures were true, that isn't how it works at all. Thermodynamic efficiency (and hence CO2 emissions) depend strongly on the working conditions. Hence even if burning X amount of fuel Y releases an amount Z of contaminating molecules, when comparing a car and a power plant you have to take working conditions into account. Here you have a 101 introduction of how to think about thermodynamic efficiency of engines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X