Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ryzen 7 2700 / Ryzen 7 2700X / Core i7 8700K Linux Gaming Performance With RX Vega 64, GTX 1080 Ti

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

  • #41
    Qaridarium I can speak only for low-end motherboards, in the past (Athlon XP era) MSI motherboards kicked some serious a**, they were great, MSI Neo etc., ASUS was great also. However, in era of buldozer, AM3+ MSI motherboards had terrible VRM's, affecting both stability and PC usage in general, but, no matter how bad it was in that segment (lower-end, even mainstream), they were far better than Gigabyte (that sucked even in K7/Athlon XP era, even at high end). ASUS on the other hand have really good track record in my experience, those motherboards usually worked the best, MSI had problems with lower quality parts in the past, Gigabyte with stuttering and lag, while ASUS kept all that in check, and had some periodic problems with BIOS (asus k7v8x with via chipset, funny enough AMD competition nvidia chipset did not have those BIOS problems asus k7n8x with nForce 2 ultra 400) and usual amount of RMA, probably higher than Gigabyte, but it was worth it in my opinion. But, as far as I know, all motherboard manufacturers did spend very little on AMD systems in order to cut price in the era of FX, and even back in Athlon XP+ era they did less to what they would do for Intel, in my opinion, harming AMD brand (I remmeber Athlon XP 2000+ working like total cr*p on Gigabyte motehrboard, stutter, lag all sorts of nonsense, while warking perfectly on mine AsRock motehrboard with via chipset, and latter on Abit with nForce chipset, honestly even tho it was faster with RAM etc., VIA did work "smoother" if that makes any sense, or better said AsRock since ASUS with nForce worked better than Abit).

    Not sure what AMD can do about it, but that is long-term problem already with motherboard manufacturers, and people claim it got quite better since "Zen", but I can't speak about things I do not know.

    bridgman Oh, I see, didn't really investigated, just did what I was asked to do.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by leipero View Post
      Qaridarium I can speak only for low-end motherboards, in the past (Athlon XP era) MSI motherboards kicked some serious a**, they were great, MSI Neo etc., ASUS was great also. However, in era of buldozer, AM3+ MSI motherboards had terrible VRM's, affecting both stability and PC usage in general, but, no matter how bad it was in that segment (lower-end, even mainstream), they were far better than Gigabyte (that sucked even in K7/Athlon XP era, even at high end). ASUS on the other hand have really good track record in my experience, those motherboards usually worked the best, MSI had problems with lower quality parts in the past, Gigabyte with stuttering and lag, while ASUS kept all that in check, and had some periodic problems with BIOS (asus k7v8x with via chipset, funny enough AMD competition nvidia chipset did not have those BIOS problems asus k7n8x with nForce 2 ultra 400) and usual amount of RMA, probably higher than Gigabyte, but it was worth it in my opinion. But, as far as I know, all motherboard manufacturers did spend very little on AMD systems in order to cut price in the era of FX, and even back in Athlon XP+ era they did less to what they would do for Intel, in my opinion, harming AMD brand (I remmeber Athlon XP 2000+ working like total cr*p on Gigabyte motehrboard, stutter, lag all sorts of nonsense, while warking perfectly on mine AsRock motehrboard with via chipset, and latter on Abit with nForce chipset, honestly even tho it was faster with RAM etc., VIA did work "smoother" if that makes any sense, or better said AsRock since ASUS with nForce worked better than Abit).
      Not sure what AMD can do about it, but that is long-term problem already with motherboard manufacturers, and people claim it got quite better since "Zen", but I can't speak about things I do not know.
      ok there is up and down's but my problem with MSI is really if you want to report a bug to them they claim only windows is supported by AMD. And this behavior is hurting AMDs reputation.
      AMD claims they support linux but in the end there is no mainboard with linux support what a joke.

      and TR4 Threadripper mainboards is not cheap lowend mainboards it is fucking 350€ highend mainboards.

      This Anti-Linux behavior of AMD mainboard board partners is really hurtful
      Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
        they claim only windows is supported by AMD.
        That doesn't sound right... can you PM me some more info ?

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by BNieuwenhuizen View Post
          https://www.tomsguide.com/us/nvidia-...view-4241.html

          So I think for some of the vulkan benches it indeed plays a role that radv is a bit worse for vega.

          However also remember that it is being compared to a 1080 Ti, not a 1080, and from other benchmarks I can see the Ti tends to push another 20-30% compared to the 1080 on windows: https://www.tomsguide.com/us/nvidia-...view-4241.html

          Generally I'd expect the vega 64 to keep up with the 1080 but not the 1080 Ti.
          I shouldn't have limited my comment to 4K, it just seems to "flatline" across the different CPUs for all of the Tomb Raider tests, even for the 1920x1080 resolution. Is it simply because it's GPU-limited?

          Comment

          Working...
          X