Graphics cards for Linux
in [Linux Hardware]
|
From: Bit Twister on 22 Jan 2010 10:34 On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:15:24 +0100, David Brown wrote: > > I have /heard/ that with a modern Nvidia card, the open source drivers > are still very limited, while the binary drivers are very good. On the > other hand, for modern ATI cards, both the open source drivers and the > binary drivers are sort of middle-of-the-road. Thus for open source > only, ATI is the best choice - when you are willing to use binary > drivers, Nvidia comes out best. Heheh, I am thinking about not buying ATI ever again. RS480 [Radeon Xpress 200G Series] (on board) Module: ATI Radeon 9500 - X850 all I could get was somewhere below 60 FPS using teapot. Went an bought a RV710 [Radeon HD 4350] Module: Card:ATI Radeon HD 2000 and later (radeon/fglrx) teapot gave me 142 FPS on mandriva 2010.0. Installed mandriva 2010.1 Alpha1. Can only get 60.14 FPS max. Downloaded ATI driver. Would not even run. Another place to look, http://www.free3d.org/
From: GangGreene on 22 Jan 2010 10:51 Aragorn wrote: [putolin] >> My first question is, am I correct in thinking Nvidia is the best >> choice for Linux driver support these days? > > That's in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I would say "yes", but > as soon as I do that, the FSF and the Radeon/Intel fans are going to > jump all over my post. :p > > Yes, we know that AMD/ATi are now releasing Catalyst drivers which "sort > of" work, and we know that Intel releases its drivers as FOSS, but in > my humble opinion, nVidia drivers are still the best, even if they > *are* binary-only blobs. FYI I have an ATI RadeonHD 4670 on Slackware-12.2, with ATI drivers. I get an insane framerate on glxgears. I have not seen any trouble with ATI drivers to date. > > (Mind you, I'm not criticizing AMD/ATi video adapters themselves, but a > good video adapter with a poor driver is not going to be satisfactory. > nVidia have great video cards, and probably the best quality of > drivers, so if you don't have any political objections to binary blobs, > then my advice would be to go with nVidia.) > >> I am pragmatic about binary drivers - I'd prefer open source drivers >> if they work well enough, but I can live with binary graphics drivers >> if they are solid, work with a reasonable range of distributions >> (mainly Ubuntu 9.10 64-bit, but I want to try out several others while >> the machine is new). Th open source driver for my ATI card get me just over 550 FPS, not great but it works > > nVidia then. :-) >
From: Mark Hobley on 22 Jan 2010 14:08 David Brown <david(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > I'm planning on putting together a new workstation, and would like to > here some opinions on graphics cards. I use old ATI 9200 series cards here, and they work fine with open source drivers. However, I have recently seen a newish computer using on board Intel graphics chip with open source drivers, and that worked really well with 3D games. Apparently, the newer ATI cards all work with open source drivers too, but I have not seen these in operation. I would either find someone with a working ATI card, and buy the same card as them, or go for an Intel based based graphics chipset. If you want closed source drivers, then you could choose Nvidia. (Apple computers are fitted with Nvidia cards), so you may want to look at that. > It will be a reasonably powerful > machine (i7-860, most likely), and I'd like a fairly powerful graphics > card to go with it (though I'm not aiming for extremes here). Support > for two screens is a priority. I haven't tested this on the Intel, but I am sure this would be no problem. > > My first question is, am I correct in thinking Nvidia is the best choice > for Linux driver support these days? ATI and Intel are best for open source support. Nvidia will provide closed source drivers, which some people like. > Secondly, I need to be able to work with a demanding windows-only > program that needs powerful 3D graphics Ok... Intel, ATI and Nvidia cards all run fine on Microsoft Windows. > (I'd also like to run some > windows-only games, but that's a bonus) - I don't think Wine will be > suitable. I'd like to avoid dual-boot, so that I can avoid using > Windows for other purposes. That means virtualisation. > > The three options I am looking at here are Virtual Box, Xen, and KVM. I > am familiar with Virtual Box (with both Windows and Linux hosts and > guests), and find it very easy to work with, but 3D support is a bit > limited. Can a Windows machine running under Xen or KVM get more direct > access to graphics hardware? And if so, how does that play along with > the Linux host? And are there differences depending on the graphics > card, or will any supported card work the same? Stick with open source compatible cards would be my suggestion here .... Choose Intel or ATI Mark. -- Mark Hobley Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/
From: Hans-Peter Diettrich on 22 Jan 2010 15:32 David Brown schrieb: > I have /heard/ that with a modern Nvidia card, the open source drivers > are still very limited, while the binary drivers are very good. On the > other hand, for modern ATI cards, both the open source drivers and the > binary drivers are sort of middle-of-the-road. Thus for open source > only, ATI is the best choice - when you are willing to use binary > drivers, Nvidia comes out best. Do you think that is a reasonable > summary, or have I been reading the wrong web sites? The point is: most graphics cards manufacturers don't want to publish the tricks, built into their cards, by offering open-source drivers. Thus it doesn't make sense to buy a high-performance card, and use it with an crippled open-source driver. > That's certainly a consideration - it's a combination I use already on > other systems (such as the one I'm typing on at the moment), although I > use Virtual Box rather than MS's Virtual PC. But I'm aiming to have > Linux as the host if I can - you want the safest and most flexible > system on the host, not the guests. Only the host system can provide full access to the hardware. When your machine comes with a Windows OS, and possibly with special main board and other drivers, then you should use it as the host system. If safety is more important than performance, you can use an Linux host. I do so, and I have to accept that I cannot use the built-in TV and WLAN devices, due to lack of according Linux drivers. Even the power options don't work on some Linux distros. DoDi
From: Danno on 22 Jan 2010 15:52
David Brown wrote: > I'm planning on putting together a new workstation, and would like to > here some opinions on graphics cards. <snip> > Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated. > > David I've been using Slackware-nVidia for years now on Intel and pre-ATI AMD, pretty much from the time nVidia started making their blobs. Apart from one or two minor inconveniences quite a while ago, it has been a very good experience for me. I don't even look at other chipsets when I'm in a purchasing mood. I don't really do a lot of 3D any more, but, I recently fired up Unreal Tournament 1999 & UT2003, for instance, and they worked out of the box on this machine in full 1080p. I've only used WINE for Win stuff, have never found the framerate for 3D apps very good. The software you are describing suggests it should be run natively if framerate is that important; I'd be inclined to dual boot if there is no alternative linux software. -- Slackware 12.2, 2.6.27.7, Core i7 920, GeForce 8400 GS RLU #272755 |