New graphic card Nvidia or ATI [Archive]

Spitfire

12-29-2007, 08:35 AM

Dear Community!

Today my CPU decided to stop working. As I wanted to buy a new PC anyway it's now time to find out what hardware to choose. What I now want to find out is, what graphic card to take. My last one was a Nvidia AGP card, so no way to use this one in future...

What do you think? Is a ATI card worth buying it? I mean will these new drivers get the same performance for Linux as for Windows? And if yes, will the open source drivers be good enough to run the latest 3D Games (e.g. Enemy Territory - Quake Wars)?

I mean, why should I buy a graphic card of a vendor, who still needs a lot of time to improve there closed source drivers, and will not support High-Performance open source drivers? The closed source drivers of Nvidia are already working good... So is there any sense to support ATI in this way?

And please do not start a religious war. I really don't care about higher performance for less money or that stuff. I want to support ATI if they're doing a good job in supporting OSS. (My card wouldn't be the only one in future. I have a lot of customers using Linux due to my recommendations) Otherwise I will support Nvidia for there already good Linux support.

Thank you all in advance!

Cheers,
Daniel

Thetargos

12-29-2007, 09:07 AM

I was kind of hesitant as of my video card choice for my new system as well, there are many good things happening in the AMD/ATi front, but there are ugly lingering bugs that prevent me from taking the plunge and going back to ATi. First of all, my computer is virtually my whole entertainment system, so working XVideo is a must, currently it is broken. It is very nice of them to be opening their specs and what not to have better OSS driver support, which is a good reason to eventually switch (once the drivers are mature enough, with working 3D and then we'll see which is better and faster (proprietary Vs open, if indeed both are made from the very same documentation).

On the other hand nVidia has a track record of very good Linux support through their proprietary drivers. They do have a driver that is up to par with their Windows' driver and given some circumstances, they are even better. The array of features and its performance is very appealing, not to mention that they are mostly more stable than fglrx, though not as stable as open drivers. It is indeed a tough call... I'm going to go with nVidia this time around and allow AMD/ATi drivers to mature further and to see how do the Open drivers develop and turn out to be.

Spitfire

12-29-2007, 09:30 AM

Thank you very much for your oppinion and advice. I think this is the best way. Let's see what happens in future...

Cheers,
Daniel

mlau

12-29-2007, 11:03 AM

I too bought a card from the green team, mainly due to really
good linux support (I never had to patch the nvidia kernel module
to get it to compile against latest -git source), and because
I wanted to play with the "CUDA" (GPGPU) stuff. AFAIK ATI does not (yet?) have their "Close to Metal" ready for Linux.

yoshi314

12-29-2007, 02:03 PM

i'd go for ati. maybe because i'm used to them.

even if the blob screws up, you have quite decent opensource drivers, which are quickly improving. besides ati's handing out the specs.

but that matters if you
- don't play advanced 3d games (doom3, quake4, et:qw etc) too much
- don't use some features (esp. tv-out)
- can wait for opensource drivers to benefit from soon-to-be released batch of docs.

from my point of view opensource drivers are more important. and ati shows more promise than nvidia in that matter.

if you need your card working NOW - i'd recommend nvidia, though.

Swoopy

12-29-2007, 03:18 PM

ATI using the RadeonHD driver (with 'Option "NoRandR" "true"' if you have to in order to get your desired resolution.) is pretty workable in Linux if you don't need the 3d.

If you absolutely need the 3d in Linux, you have to go with Nvidia.

I recently switched from Nvidia to Ati because Nvidia stopped making AGP cards at the GeForce7 series and I wasn't ready to overhaul my entire system just to get to PCI-Express.
So I got an ATI HD2600XT AGP ... 2-3 times faster than my Nvidia 6600GT AGP was. Runs Crysis like a charm (in windows :-( ) unlike my 6600GT.
In hindsight I jumped just a bit too soon since the maturity of the drivers isn't quite there yet with ATI but they show promise, especially the OSS radeonhd.

Svartalf

12-29-2007, 03:56 PM

The simple truth is this:

AMD's not there for a large range of applications- not right at the moment.

NVidia currently is.

AMD has been giving out specs.

NVidia hasn't.

If you need 3D right now, there's very few choices- Intel or NVidia, and Intel's not got really high performing parts yet. NVidia's pretty much your only choice unless you get lucky with the AMD parts and the stuff you do works right on the drivers they've provided.

If you're willing to wait and limp through the next 6 to 12 months with a mixed bag of support, AMD is definitely the way to go. It's the future, I suspect, of things on Linux, but it's just not anywhere near gelled yet.

Spitfire

12-29-2007, 08:39 PM

Hope there's someone still awake, as here in Germany it's now 2:30 AM. I have again big trouble now. I mean, I could probably wait these 12 months for good 3d support because I have to dual-boot anyway. And I really want to support this new openness of ATi/AMD. One more thing from holding me back to click on "order" is the fact, that I get nearly doubled performance in a ATi card than in a NVidia card for the same money. Okay, I said I don't care about that, but, hell, doubled?!?! (Referring to Sapphire ATi HD2600XT/800Mhz/256mb-ddr4@2200MHz versus MSI NVidia NX8600GT-MTD256E/540Mhz/256mb-ddr2@1400MHz) So maybe I should play risky and just order that ATi card...

But (again) what if NVidia is about to release specs, too? Never mind, ATi was first :P

Thanks again!

Cheers,
Daniel

Dandel

12-29-2007, 08:48 PM

Personally i would use Radeon, considering it's progressing rapidly on both the Open Source and Closed Source drivers... i expect a lot in 2008 to improve the ATI Drivers for linux/bsd/etc.

Spitfire

12-29-2007, 08:51 PM

Hell, I will get that ATi card. There's just one thing left to decide. What's better? 512mb of ddr3@1400MHz or 256mb of ddr4@2200MHz? And on the AMD website the card seems to support OpenGL 2.0, but I could not find any hint about that on the shopping site. But I guess there is OpenGL 2.0 support, right?

Thetargos

12-29-2007, 11:28 PM

For me currently there is not much of an option... I have to go NV or get crying back to Windows after about 5 years of not even touching the thing (on my main rig, at least). I do much 3D, not only gaming, but also visualization, and ATi is not there yet. Add to that the whole "entertainment" angle (as the Visualization stuff is for work which I seldom do at home), and I really wouldn't want to crawl back to Windows to be able to do the stuff I currently do, even with such outdated hardware.

However, I'll keep my eyes on ATi, who knows? Maybe by the time the R700 and G90 come by, ATi will pose some real competition to NV (which has been lacking as of late)

Spitfire

12-30-2007, 04:33 PM

psycho_driver

12-30-2007, 11:41 PM

I recently pulled my FX 5900 to check out the new ATi drivers with my (just given away) X1600 Pro 512MB.

I have to say, if you've been using Nvidia for years, you're in for a real shock when you try to use an ATi card. They're no where near the same level yet.

Svartalf

12-31-2007, 02:23 PM

I keep chuckling at the people that keep insisting on getting a G80 or comparing the G80 to the R600... The reality is, you should also compare side by side to the previous generation.

You're going to find that most of the GPUs of the current new generation are not "faster", per se, unless the applications you're using end up using the new features that the next generation is offering in silicon as opposed to hardware.

Unless you're going to be dabbling in geometry shaders, or CUDA, you're NOT going to see much performance edge over the G70 when considering G80 parts (though the performance problems seem to be getting resolved...)- even when they get them resolved, there's not going to be a big performance jump over the G70's in comparison to the G80's...

The story's a little different with AMD's R500 vs. the R600, but the drivers aren't as stable as they ought to be, are missing quite a bit of the features that they at least got right, if not slowly, on the old drivers and there's still questions of the quality, in light of things like memory leaks from hell showing up with other chipsets. If I had cash budget to reward what they're working on making happen right now, I'd be buying an R600 based card right now. I don't have that kind of budget...

Say what you like folks, it all depends on what you're needing. If you need real 3D now as opposed to theoretical (keep in mind people seeing half as much performance from AMD to NVidia need to consider that this is liable to be a DRIVER issue- all the drivers on the Windows side of things for both companies under Vista and XP for the new generation have...issues... :D) possibilities, you're better off, much better so, with NVidia and NOT going with the latest and greatest. (Something I still never quite get...if it doesn't give you any speed advanatages, won't bring anything new to the table for you for at least 6-12 months, why do you go and buy it? G80's are that sort of thing- and you can get more muscle in a G70 that will work just fine for quite some time to come for less money...)

If you're willing to risk waiting another 6-12 months or more to get your investment fully going, then by all means, get an AMD GPU.

Moustacha

12-31-2007, 09:43 PM

Unless you're going to be dabbling in geometry shaders, or CUDA, you're NOT going to see much performance edge over the G70 when considering G80 parts (though the performance problems seem to be getting resolved...)- even when they get them resolved, there's not going to be a big performance jump over the G70's in comparison to the G80's...

Bit like getting an Aston Martin DB9 to commute to work when you could do it in some sh*t box. You still gotta abide by the speed limit.
Performance - not much to be gained really from nv 7-> nv 8 series. 7600gt vs 8600gt, 8600 is about 5% faster and heavier on the hip pocket. Though the "comfort" of it could be better, i.e. lower power usage, better quality.
If you can afford a G8* card, you may as well as the drivers will mature and performance will get better. G7* cards are pretty close to their top, with the top end cards discontinued or to that effect.

Svartalf

01-01-2008, 02:53 AM

Bit like getting an Aston Martin DB9 to commute to work when you could do it in some sh*t box. You still gotta abide by the speed limit.
Performance - not much to be gained really from nv 7-> nv 8 series. 7600gt vs 8600gt, 8600 is about 5% faster and heavier on the hip pocket. Though the "comfort" of it could be better, i.e. lower power usage, better quality.

Then WHY rag on them?

And the analogy is more akin to driving the Aston versus a Lotus or Porche... :D

Moustacha

01-01-2008, 03:39 AM

Man...NYE celebration + lack of sleep, i've confused myself.

G70 = performance now
G80 = performance tomorrow
any AMD = performance tomorrow

G80 and AMD have room to increase. G70 is as far as it can go with drivers.
I agree the 7 series card is better FOR NOW. It's just one of those waiting games. Then they release the 9 series and you wonder, do I upgrade to a 9 series card and *hope* the performance improves? Unfortunately that seems to be the way on Linux atm. Windows you see how the actual cards perform not the drivers, since they're pretty well on par with each other.

Svartalf

01-01-2008, 10:54 AM

Windows you see how the actual cards perform not the drivers, since they're pretty well on par with each other.

Nope. There's quite a bit of headroom in the Windows drivers, according to the specs of both the G80 and R600. On paper, they're really, really a better deal than the past generation- run cooler for the levels of performance gained, run at least 10-40% faster with the stuff the prior generation provides. The reality, however, even under Windows, is another thing altogether.

It's why I'm so damn frustrated with AMD's progress on their binary drivers and the documentation efforts.

They have the better silicon in many cases. The damn problem is, even under Windows, is that their driver efforts hamper the performance and stability of the chips. That's so frustrating, to not be able to obtain the better deal (they typically are cheaper AND faster...) because the damn drivers are simply not there and haven't been for some time.

And your comment about things... People are thinking that the stuff's gelled on the G80 and it's just not there. And G70 stuff? I am still able to find all ranges of that stuff on the shelves and it'll be there for at least another 4-6 or possibly more months. The AGP stuff may not be there much longer, but th G70 series of parts makes for a value lineup for retailers much like the G60 and GeForce FX series did (Hell, I am still seeing GeForce 5XXX cards on the shelves...)

Thetargos

01-01-2008, 07:25 PM

I understand your point of few, I really would like to kick Windows from my hard drive too. But I'm forced to use Windows as many games or other requirements for gaming are not working (well) through Wine. (e.g. Punkbuster, Aequitas (Anti-cheat) and lots of new games)

But I'm full of confidence: This will change!

Cheers,
Daniel

Just to be clear...

When I decided to go 100% Linux, I knew I was giving up some stuff I really enjoyed, like [some] gaming. I knew I was in for a hell of ride in that particular regard, as:

There were but a few commercial titles.
Wine was (and still is) not the right kind of solution.
I'd be missing a LOT of games.

One thing is knowing the situation and another completely different thing is coping with it. It has been difficult, very difficult at times. Even at work where I work with 3D visualization, and even though I could keep 100% Windows-Free, there are just simply some apps that require the thing. At home, for my private use, I knew what I was giving up, and it's been hard, though worth it too. But I guess the degree of worth is simply too personal to mean anything. I ended up simply giving away all that I couldn't run in Linux or required Windows, turned to Console gaming instead of PC gaming (not as pretty, but surely very fun!), and contrary to what I thought, I ended having more multimedia capabilities than in Windows.

Like I said, for me it's been worth it, but for others it is not worth it giving up on something, anything (gaming mainly in my case). I'm very enthusiastic about Linux and the recent advancements there's been towards a broader games library, better hardware support from IHVs (that of course includes video cards hardware), and even rising OEM support (which can only speak of how lousy the situation is on the Microsoft camp).

I'm happy with what I can do and have now. I can only expect more interesting things to happen in 2008.

Osado

01-02-2008, 02:44 PM

Hello

As I said in another thread, carpe diem.

If you want a good GNU/linux experience NOW, you have three choices:
Intel: If you do not have need for powerful graphics performance. It enjoys a good free driver.
Nvidia: The propietary driver works fine. Powerful performance. I doubt that the situation will go worse. but if FOSS driver is a matter for you, then should not be your choice.
AMD/ATI: There are a lot of expectations, either with the propietary or the free driver, but nowadays is like having a Ferrari on bicycle tires...

You have now the choice...
Happy New Year!

conholster

01-03-2008, 05:39 PM

If you are buying now 4th january 2008 I'd say go with nvidia. Theyre putting out some really great cards at good prices, atm Ati isnt. If you can spend the $250-300 then get a 8800GT 512MB which is the fastest thing in its price range and almost as fast as more expensive gpus.

yetanothersteve

01-06-2008, 01:29 AM

I will be building a new system in February and am leaning towards Nvidia still. Years ago I bought a Radeon 8500 and fought and struggled with the drivers to get 3D working for months - this was on SuSE 8.x, I believe. My enjoyment of 3D in Linux did not really start until I switched to GeForce cards. I would like to support ATI's efforts but not until I can be certain that I will be able to install and hop into Quake 4 like I know I will be able to with Nvidia.

On my personal computer I have been booting Linux exclusively since 2004 (Ubuntu since 5.10 after bailing on the SuSE/Novell debacle) and did it knowing I would be giving up most games. But, it was also for the best to allow me to spend more time on other things. At work I spend most of my day bouncing between Windows XP and 2003 and Solaris 10 and futilely trying to justify introducing some Redhat servers to the mix.

Kano

01-06-2008, 01:31 PM

In february there should be already 9xxx series out from nvidia.

seanbarman

01-14-2008, 02:54 PM

I opted for ati, as they seem committed to opensource and lowering prices. Nvidia have always forced high prices. Just look at the 8800gt supposedly a shortage, I really don't believe this rubbish it's just an excuse to raise problems.

Image quality is better with ati!

conholster

01-14-2008, 04:59 PM

Image quality today has more to do with your monitor than the brand of GPU. Ati used to be the better of two but that isnt true anymore..

Kano

01-14-2008, 06:43 PM

As soon as you use dvi the vga signal quality is not important anymore.

stunted

01-14-2008, 11:03 PM

I'll be building a couple of new systems in the next month or so.

At the moment I'm planning on going for a Radeon x1050, it's an R300 chip so it has good open source 3D and 2D support already, and it's inexpensive, also I'll have a clear upgrade path in a years time when the newer GPUs are better supported.

The R400 GPUs work well also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ATI_Graphics_Processing_Units

The down side of the subR500 generation GPUs is the largest texture is 2048x2048 which means if the total size of you desktop in any dimension exceeds that you can't use 3D desktops.

If your interested I was going to pair it with an
MSI K9A2 Platinum
and a Energy Efficient Athlon64 x2 (Windsor core with 2x 1MB cache) 4000+, 4400+, 4800+ or 5200+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Athlon_64_microprocessors
and a couple of GBs of ECC RAM.

Good luck

Kano

01-15-2008, 05:30 AM

stunted

01-15-2008, 06:46 AM

The X1050 GPU is a real joke it is slower than everything you might know. Maybe 50% of a 9700 in best case. It is a renamed X550 which was only a slight mod from X300. The upgrade path would be: replace it at once you need 3d.

Mmm, I knew it wasn't great but didn't realize it was that bad, maybe I'll see if I can find an x800 instead.

Kano

01-15-2008, 07:07 AM

Btw. why don't you get Intel? Even the cheapest Pentium DualCore (stay away from Pentium D) will OC nicely and will be faster than any cheap AMD CPU. Also ECC RAMs is only for servers not for desktop system.

stunted

01-15-2008, 08:48 PM

Btw. why don't you get Intel?
Mainly, because either would be plenty powerful enough for my needs, so I can spend my money with whichever company I prefer and not reward the bullying behavior of Intel. Add to that the fact that I really want to encourage AMD in their efforts to open the specs of their GPUs, and I think it's important for Intel to have competition, and the idle power consumption of AMD CPUs is lower than that of the Intel ones, so for me it makes sense to reward the underdog and buy AMD.
Also ECC RAMs is only for servers not for desktop system.
ECC Registered RAM is for servers, it has buffers and error correction and is very expensive.
ECC RAM (Unbuffered) has error correction but no registers and is suitable for workstations and PCs that will be left on a lot.
Standard RAM (Non ECC) has neither error correction or registers and is suitable home PCs and gaming rigs.

In all cases the memory controller has to support the type of RAM you wish to use, as far as I know the integrated memory controller in AMDs Non Opteron 64bit CPUs, support ECC and standard RAM (NOT Registered) and there shouldn't be any real speed difference between the 2 as, although each read is an extra 2 bits wide, you're still doing the same number of reads per second, and unlike with Registered / buffered RAM, the memory is read directly so there shouldn't be any difference in latency either, though there will be a price difference.

I tend to leave my PC on all the time as it's always doing something, so my goals are reliability and low power consumption then speed.

Svartalf

01-15-2008, 09:26 PM

Mmm, I knew it wasn't great but didn't realize it was that bad, maybe I'll see if I can find an x800 instead.

I would advise an X800. The other's almost like the Uwe Boll of video cards (Yes, they're THAT bad...). ATI produced a handful of real stinkers during the R300/R400 era- the X1050, X300, and the Xpress200M being in that mix.

enzobelmont

01-16-2008, 03:07 PM

please! for gods sake get a NV card, youll wont be in this forums praying every month anymore.

sorry my *crappy* english.

Svartalf

01-16-2008, 05:08 PM

please! for gods sake get a NV card, youll wont be in this forums praying every month anymore.

sorry my *crappy* english.

This depends on whether you need the 3D support now or in about 6-12 months from now as AMD releases the needed information to make a useful Open Sourced driver...or finally gets most of the kinks worked out on fglrx.

Their silicon, with the notable exceptions we're now discussing (The string of excessively and amazingly craptacular IGP/Laptop/Value offerings during the R300 and R400 eras that they should seriously apologize to every PC owner they inflicted them on..), tends to actually be better, potentially faster, stuff. But their drivers, even in Windows, leave a lot to be desired in the stability and performance arenas. NVidia produces consistent results but hasn't done anything for us in the way of opening up, whereas, AMD has.

Six of one, half dozen of another, really.

It's why I've bought NVidia stuff to get things done now. It's why I've kept my R300, R400, and R500 testing parts in hand instead of dust binning them. It's why I'm waiting on the fence to see if AMD gets it's act together here (whatever form that ends up taking...) and/or if NVidia gets a clue on the Open Source front. No G80's bought. No R600's bought.

stunted

01-16-2008, 11:34 PM

This depends on whether you need the 3D support now or in about 6-12 months from now as AMD releases the needed information to make a useful Open Sourced driver...And also what level of 3D you require. My
ATI Technologies Inc Radeon R350 [Radeon 9800 Pro]
and
ATI Technologies Inc Radeon R300 [Radeon 9500 Pro]
Both have more than enough grunt for 3D desktop stuff (although as my dual head display is 2560 x 1024 I don't / can't actually run any wizzbang effects on my PC) and produce playable frame rates in Nexuiz, my
ATI Technologies Inc RV280 [Radeon 9200 PRO]
and
ATI Technologies Inc RV280 [Radeon 9200]
can do most 3D desktop stuff but not Nexuiz.

The Open drivers have a long way to go before they catch the windows or fglx driver in terms of frame rate, but I'm not a big gamer and for the moment I'm happy to switch to a closed driver or OS for a quick frag session.

One of the other things I'm really hoping will happen as a result of AMD opening the specs of their GPUs is assisted video compression and decompression.

Cpt-Klink

01-17-2008, 05:51 AM

I personally like ATI have never steered me wrong and they have way better customer support but it all really depends on what you like and perfer

lenrek

01-17-2008, 06:30 AM

I personally like ATI have never steered me wrong and they have way better customer support but it all really depends on what you like and perfer

For Linux support? My goodness, where the hell have you been...

DeepDayze

01-17-2008, 10:08 AM

I personally like ATI have never steered me wrong and they have way better customer support but it all really depends on what you like and perfer

C'mon put down the crack pipe, bud. ATI does not quite have its crap together yet.

Svartalf

01-17-2008, 11:58 AM

I personally like ATI have never steered me wrong and they have way better customer support but it all really depends on what you like and perfer

Perhaps you've gotten lucky with the Windows side of things, but they've never QUITE had it all together with the Linux side of things.

Bugs going unfixed for over a year or more- problems that should have been fixed ASAP as they impair the functionality of the GPU on the machine they're using (For example, Hypermemory/Sideport support on Xpress200M and similar parts- if you've got dedicated RAM for the GPU, you can at least see the peak speed of the crippled things, such as it is. Using UMA, the performance goes into the toilet even moreso than with the dedicated only or UMA/Dedicated configuration. The drivers haven't been able to support that dedicated RAM for two and a half years running now, whereas before that they DID have it handled.). Even now, they have serious problems with the drivers unless you're talking a PCI-E R600 based part.

They're getting better, yes. Are they there yet to merit your statement? No. I'm tickled pink that they're taking the time to interact with us, give us technical data to help us help them. It's why they've still got the time of day from me. However, if you're needing real 3D performance on Linux now, you're better served with an NVidia part for the time being.