Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
743 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
so I have been thinking of returning my 970 and replacing it with a msi lightening 290x and just wondering how the performance of amd's linux drivers are?

it's been awhile since i ran a amd/ati gpu on linux. last time it was a 4850 and i remember just having so many issues.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,324 Posts
They're getting better, but I still honestly wouldn't recommend them if you want something that's just going to work. Nvidias drivers are in the neighborhood of high 9x% that of their Windows counterparts in terms of performance, and the driver is typically just a click away for most users.
 

·
10 year OCN Vet
Joined
·
3,422 Posts
Interesting! I haven't done extensive testing with the exception of running a few of Unigine's test suites but in most cases I get better video performance in Linux w/ nVidia drivers. The only thing they seem to "lack" and which is of very little interest to me, is the extended "Control Panel" type affair that is installed with Windows. As in gaming, where I also get better video performance with the exception of a few games (such as down-stepped DX11 games) it is difficult to know whether either gains or losses are due just to the graphics driver or some other related performance issue, such as low-latency kernel and scheduling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,283 Posts
AMD's linux drivers are dreadful. Sure they have improved, but they went from absolute garbage to slightly better. NVIDIA cards score roughly the same or even higher on Linux while AMD's perform 10-20% worse and even worse than that in some instances.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,024 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlfman View Post

so I have been thinking of returning my 970 and replacing it with a msi lightening 290x...
Why?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts
I would have to agree with nvidia being the go-to graphics card for linux. Even Intel has terrible linux support unless you're running one of 2 very specific distros (or compile the drivers yourself).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,228 Posts
In AMDs defence ey now offer support for there drivers i think AND they offer pre compiled RPMS/ DPKGs unlike nvidia
wink.gif
, i also find that amd works better out of the box without drivers opposed to nvidia out of the box for multi screen support
 

·
10 year OCN Vet
Joined
·
3,422 Posts
Just to be clear it is not my intention to bad mouth Intel or AMD. In fact I salute them for making sincere effort to provide support for Linux. I sometimes wonder just how hard that can be since it seems like OSX has so many similarities that perhaps half or more of the effort in making an OSX driver/module lends itself to Linux. I should mention this is merely uninformed musing since I have so little knowledge of how much Apple has altered it's BSD underpinnings.

What is solid and informed experience though is that nVidia has a HUGE head start since they have supported numerous odd operating systems for 20+ years and specifically Linux since before the year 2000. How well default drivers work seems to depend as much on model as it does manufacturer, though I have to say that I was surprised and pleased how well the open source driver worked for me on an oddball Dell OEM Rage 128.

That said, if you're doing any "heavy lifting" it is probably still most wise to choose nVidia and it's proprietary drivers.... at least for now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,228 Posts
Oh i know im just giving my opinion
biggrin.gif
(Someone needs to dfends the reds
wink.gif
)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrak View Post

They're getting better, but I still honestly wouldn't recommend them if you want something that's just going to work. Nvidias drivers are in the neighborhood of high 9x% that of their Windows counterparts in terms of performance, and the driver is typically just a click away for most users.
This isn't true anymore. Nvidia's Linux performance currently outpaces its Windows performance by roughly 1%. This is thanks to them caring about it and having an open source driver that gets developed independently of the Windows driver. AMD on the other hand just repackages their latest Windows driver so that it will work with Linux. Their Linux performance is anywhere from 10-15-20% less than Windows performance. It will work just fine aside from that though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quailane View Post

This isn't true anymore. Nvidia's Linux performance currently outpaces its Windows performance by roughly 1%. This is thanks to them caring about it and having an open source driver that gets developed independently of the Windows driver. AMD on the other hand just repackages their latest Windows driver so that it will work with Linux. Their Linux performance is anywhere from 10-15-20% less than Windows performance. It will work just fine aside from that though.
The Nouveau driver (the open source nvidia driver) has been helped by some release of nvidia bios specs and some other limited releases, but the actual nvidia driver that you get from them is very much closed-source (to the point that Linus Torvalds once called them the "single worst company" Linux developers have ever worked with).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,564 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidzoo View Post

The Nouveau driver (the open source nvidia driver) has been helped by some release of nvidia bios specs and some other limited releases, but the actual nvidia driver that you get from them is very much closed-source (to the point that Linux Torvalds once called them the "single worst company" Linux developers have ever worked with).
Here here. I got to say that most people wouldn't care about the closed nature so long as the drivers are good and easy to use which is what Nvidia's are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rookie1337 View Post

Here here. I got to say that most people wouldn't care about the closed nature so long as the drivers are good and easy to use which is what Nvidia's are.
I totally agree. The nvidia drivers are very easy to use and for the most part always have been and that's a definite credit to them.

I wish the other big manufacturers (AMD and Intel) would put half as much work into widespread linux driver support as nvidia does.

Also, btw, I noticed a typo on Torvalds' name that I edited...his name is Linus, not Linux
tongue.gif
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,564 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidzoo View Post

I totally agree. The nvidia drivers are very easy to use and for the most part always have been and that's a definite credit to them.

I wish the other big manufacturers (AMD and Intel) would put half as much work into widespread linux driver support as nvidia does.

Also, btw, I noticed a typo on Torvalds' name that I edited...his name is Linus, not Linux
tongue.gif
Intel's drivers are the next best...they're just not very helpful in directing people to get the latest ones or how to control/use the drivers. They're basically, "hey here's drivers that work so don't ask for things like a control panel for them and you'll get updates whenever you get a new kernel/distro support".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rookie1337 View Post

Intel's drivers are the next best...they're just not very helpful in directing people to get the latest ones or how to control/use the drivers. They're basically, "hey here's drivers that work so don't ask for things like a control panel for them and you'll get updates whenever you get a new kernel/distro support".
True, but unlike nvidia, Intel only provides binaries for 2 distros (Fedora and Ubuntu). You can hack Mint so the drivers will install there, but it's a chore that really shouldn't be necessary.

They do, however, provide the source code; which is a plus.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,324 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidzoo View Post

True, but unlike nvidia, Intel only provides binaries for 2 distros (Fedora and Ubuntu). You can hack Mint so the drivers will install there, but it's a chore that really shouldn't be necessary.

They do, however, provide the source code; which is a plus.
Mint is Ubuntu. Any packages for Ubuntu will work for Mint with absolutely no modification so long as you know what version of Ubuntu your version of Mint corresponds with. And Mint will continue to be Ubuntu until they finally roll out their plans to further separate themselves sometime in the next year or two, but that's a huge undertaking that will require time.

And what Intel provides is irrelevant beyond that of the source. Of course if you go to the Intel site they're only going to provide binaries for the 2 largest package groups ( .rpm and .deb ), that's only common and quite honestly makes sense. You can't honestly expect them to provide install scripts and packages for everything out there, that would be unreal, no matter how easy or how large the company. Doing maintance and updating a million different scripts when an update occurs would just be a nightmare. A good number of software makers only really provide .debs along with their source, and many don't provide any package file. Distributions have the source, and can build and maintain it in their repository with no problem. And most distributions tend to not always build the latest and greatest software, but provide tested software that they know works with their current software stack. If you want latest and greatest, and you're using Ubuntu or an Ubuntu-based ( Mint, Elementary, etc ) distribution, then you're honestly using the wrong distribution. It's a bit counter intuitive to use an older system and then complain about out-dated software.

Quite honestly most people don't need the latest and greatest drivers, they just think they do. Unless your hardware is so new that it isn't supported by what's available in the repository, which is rare for most integrated chips unless you're running a purposely outdated system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rookie1337 View Post

Intel's drivers are the next best...they're just not very helpful in directing people to get the latest ones or how to control/use the drivers. They're basically, "hey here's drivers that work so don't ask for things like a control panel for them and you'll get updates whenever you get a new kernel/distro support".
Intel doesn't provide a control panel for Windows either. It leaves it up to system settings just like in Linux through your standard desktop environments display settings window that all the major environments come with ( gnome, kde, etc ) or through your messing with your xorg configuration files.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,564 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrak View Post

Mint is Ubuntu. Any packages for Ubuntu will work for Mint with absolutely no modification so long as you know what version of Ubuntu your version of Mint corresponds with. And Mint will continue to be Ubuntu until they finally roll out their plans to further separate themselves sometime in the next year or two, but that's a huge undertaking that will require time.

And what Intel provides is irrelevant beyond that of the source. Of course if you go to the Intel site they're only going to provide binaries for the 2 largest package groups ( .rpm and .deb ), that's only common and quite honestly makes sense. You can't honestly expect them to provide install scripts and packages for everything out there, that would be unreal, no matter how easy or how large the company. Doing maintance and updating a million different scripts when an update occurs would just be a nightmare. A good number of software makers only really provide .debs along with their source, and many don't provide any package file. Distributions have the source, and can build and maintain it in their repository with no problem. And most distributions tend to not always build the latest and greatest software, but provide tested software that they know works with their current software stack. If you want latest and greatest, and you're using Ubuntu or an Ubuntu-based ( Mint, Elementary, etc ) distribution, then you're honestly using the wrong distribution. It's a bit counter intuitive to use an older system and then complain about out-dated software.

Quite honestly most people don't need the latest and greatest drivers, they just think they do. Unless your hardware is so new that it isn't supported by what's available in the repository, which is rare for most integrated chips unless you're running a purposely outdated system.
Intel doesn't provide a control panel for Windows either. It leaves it up to system settings just like in Linux through your standard desktop environments display settings window that all the major environments come with ( gnome, kde, etc ) or through your messing with your xorg configuration files.
Actually Intel does provide a control panel program in Windows. It doesn't offer anything important to us but it does allow things like Gamma, Clock Profiles, and so on.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,324 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rookie1337 View Post

Actually Intel does provide a control panel program in Windows. It doesn't offer anything important to us but it does allow things like Gamma, Clock Profiles, and so on.
Not on the machines I've used
tongue.gif
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,166 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidzoo View Post

the actual nvidia driver that you get from them is very much closed-source (to the point that Linus Torvalds once called them the "single worst company" Linux developers have ever worked with).
Unlike the Linux community, Nvidia is in the business of making money, and part of that is not potentially exposing trade secrets to Linux hackers. Rather than go all RMS on Nvidia for making proprietary drivers, the Linux community, starting with Linus himself, should be grateful that Nvidia puts so much time and effort in its Linux drivers that they can be used at parity with the Windows drivers.

We've got Linux distros available now that are the complete equal of commercial OSes. I've got Mint Cinnamon 17.1 on my laptop and I can't remember the last time I booted it into Windows. I don't need to, and if I don't need to, then I'd rather use Mint. It's the first time I've ever booted a computer I use regularly into Linux by preference on a long-term regular basis. (I can't do this on the desktop, but only because of proprietary Windows software that I use in my work.) And part of the reason for that is because corporations that make hardware are supporting Linux more than ever. Criticizing their methods in so doing is counterproductive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,750 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1973 View Post

Unlike the Linux community, Nvidia is in the business of making money, and part of that is not potentially exposing trade secrets to Linux hackers. Rather than go all RMS on Nvidia for making proprietary drivers, the Linux community, starting with Linus himself, should be grateful that Nvidia puts so much time and effort in its Linux drivers that they can be used at parity with the Windows drivers.

We've got Linux distros available now that are the complete equal of commercial OSes. I've got Mint Cinnamon 17.1 on my laptop and I can't remember the last time I booted it into Windows. I don't need to, and if I don't need to, then I'd rather use Mint. It's the first time I've ever booted a computer I use regularly into Linux by preference on a long-term regular basis. (I can't do this on the desktop, but only because of proprietary Windows software that I use in my work.) And part of the reason for that is because corporations that make hardware are supporting Linux more than ever. Criticizing their methods in so doing is counterproductive.
agree.

my Nvidia performance on Linux using the closed driver is faster than I remember it being on windows. Im not complaining when all the new source engine games im using at max settings never go below 140fps and are regularly at 290fps and my setup isn't particularly aggressive.

we could talk DRM or closed source all day long but given Valves linux support and Nvidia's driver support Linux is now just about a completely viable gaming platform. For everything else its been viable for a long time, its just easier to use and get to grips with now as a new user.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top