Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 70

Thread: 15-Way Open vs. Closed Source NVIDIA/AMD Linux GPU Comparison

  1. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YAFU View Post
    Ohhh! AMD meets 1,2,3,4 ... 5,6,7 and 10000. AMD/ATI is so perfect ... Stupid people like me who criticize AMD....
    Quote Originally Posted by YAFU View Post
    That's what trying to say. But you already see, AMD seems to be perfect for some.
    Yes, AMD meets listed items 1-4. No, AMD is not perfect (who told you that?)
    Quote Originally Posted by YAFU View Post
    nVidia is far to be perfect, but AMD/ATI is worse.
    Why? Because there is no tool with AMD logo for their FOSS driver? LOL
    Quote Originally Posted by YAFU View Post
    My points are about official support. Pay a couple of developers or collaborate with the community is NOT official support. If you have any complaint about the operation of the community "radeon" driver on the hardware you have paid, you will want to write to AMD/ATI to complain about it. AMD sent to you to ask for community support.
    What the point of talking with middle man (at least two tiers of tech. support) if you can submit bugreport directly to bugtracker that monitored by driver developers?
    Quote Originally Posted by YAFU View Post
    Also when you looking for official support, in addition to the driver you are looking for a good official GUI configuration tool.
    Poor OS X users who live without AMD&nVidia official GUI configuration tools...
    btw, who told you such (vendor-specific) tools is necessary?
    Last edited by RussianNeuroMancer; 04-30-2013 at 04:04 PM.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    I dont pick now point after point on 50 points and fuck around your quotes 1000 quotes manualy in this editor, but there are some big lines I try to point out.

    First the harsh tone came from you, you said fuck you to amd and with that to some great developers that makes great stuff for us first.
    So I basicly quoted you and reflected your "fuck you" I would not start such statement in normal conservations.

    I said something about fps, because thats more or less on the propriatary driver the only problem, the rest are in most cases the problem of the software developers. That has a history, ATI <- this fuckin shit company, did had a extremely bad linux support idea, they got money from Microsoft I guess.

    So historicaly everybody that developed stuff as example wine or quake3 or some stuff here also benchmarked, developed their software to work on nvidia hardware. if randomly that worked also with amd hardware ok if not the developers did not care at all.

    So its quite possible that they used workarounds to work with nvidia hardware that makes the code unable to run on a driver that does not have this bugs.

    Its a bit much to say to amd, please reimplement nvidia driver bugs.

    Then there is another problem we have here many benchmarks where the games gets 170-300 fps, does that matter? do you think you see the difference? Of course not, I am shure you are not that stupid, so we would need benchmarks to games that min-fps can go under 30 fps, with unfree drivers. to seeif the driver is really bad.

    Else we have here only theoretical benchmarks... for the non-free drivers.

    If they have here same problems we will see.

    Btw I see only one amd card that performs bad the 6450, a card that costs 30 euro. ok we have sometimes 10 trillion more fps, but again over 30fps it doesnt matter.
    But again thats basicly opengl 2.0 performance, for that all the cards with the unfree drivers are fast enough always. that says nothing about opengl 3 or 4/5 performance.


    And you say sometimes that you dont primary or only bitch about the fps, whatelse, the fgrlx driver is the same garbage than the nvidia driver blob is, same buggyness, nvidia has 500.000 bugs there, fglrx 500.000 bugs on a nother point.

    But again some issues are historical, you cant fuck amd for atis fault and what the other developers did because of atis faults.

    AMD cant reprogramm every single game and wine because the developers optimised everything on nvidia driver instead of generall opengl because at this times, ati basicly did not release any drivers any more. Or some really bad drivers. Like I said if you compare the bugs in the driver not in 3rd party software, fglrx is at the same state than nvidias blob is.

    as long as I dont see any benchmarks where the fps are not some 5000 fps vs 3000 fps what does not matter, I would not bitch about it.

    here a example:

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...nchmarks&num=4

    lets see unique engine 4.0 I think thats opengl 4.0

    a gtx 680 costs 400 Euros -> 47 fps
    a hd7950 costs 240 euros -> 40 fps
    gtx 550ti costs 100 euros -> 10 fps
    hd 6770 costs 70 Euros -> 11 fps

    <- here you get more from amd per euro (in the first case nearly double the fps per buck)

    lets look at the second test v 3.0 on the same site:

    a gtx 680 costs 400 Euros -> 100 fps
    a hd7950 costs 240 euros -> 90 fps
    gtx 550ti costs 100 euros -> 33 fps
    hd 6770 costs 70 Euros -> 25 fps

    I think that all looks great, I dont really know what you mean, even fps wise on real games where fps matters amd can easy stay on the same fps/bucks level than nvidia.

    So you bitch about amd because in theoretical tests from extremly old games you dont get 400 fps and only 200 or something like that?

    Think about that again.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Barcelona, Spain
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Sure sure, like we're talking about games. In this case, we say that the closed-amd drivers have a poor performance in gnome shell, underperformance in video acceleration xvba ,a poor performance in games, with each new release, new bugs. No flash acceleration, OpenGL bugs, take a long time to support new kernels and new xorgs, come, crap drivers

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pandev92 View Post
    Sure sure, like we're talking about games. In this case, we say that the closed-amd drivers have a poor performance in gnome shell, underperformance in video acceleration xvba ,a poor performance in games, with each new release, new bugs. No flash acceleration, OpenGL bugs, take a long time to support new kernels and new xorgs, come, crap drivers
    poor performance in games? I just showed you benchmarks that demonstrates that that is not true. And the other issues you list, are mostly solved in the free driver.

    So yes you dont get all with one driver, that happens if a company focuses on a new driver and slowly let the other driver die.

    grafics driver development takes years. if you dont have good ones, you cant just say in 2 months we fix that or something like that.

    and it takes even longer because of softwarepatents else we would have this vdpau in the radeon driver a year or so.

    Even if you would say amd blob is worse than nvidias blob (I dont agree to that in general, in some aspects maybe), nvidia developes now since 20 years or so their linux drivers, amd bought 6 years ago the driver from ati was total garbage ati was going bankrupt at that time, they produced only trash hardware that had no change against nvidia hardware, if they would not been bought by amd only nvidia would sell today discrete grafic cards.

    yes 6 years are long, but again I dont see a big difference in the quality of amd blob and the nvidia blob, we had big issues with the nvidia blob, they basicly needed 1 year or so to fix a abi change to the xserver so if you installed at that time a linux you got a nv driver or vesa driver or just a black screen.

    you never had that problem with radeon driver.

    yes there is one difference on the amd side, you have to decide what you want, but if you decide you get a better solution in many cases than nvidia can offer.

    As example you can now make a htpc with a amd hardware now, cheap and absolutly stable. for lets say 80,- euro + ram + case. You cant do that with nvidia. And you would need to install the very instable blobs for that, you could not just update to newer linuxes without researching if there are problems that nvidia caused.

    Yes amd could do more, but at least they do more than nvidia does. its pretty simple, if you want free drivers buy intel or amd, now with the patch with the gpu video decoding you go better with amd, because its cheaper (in most cases). If you want to use a blob go nvidia.

    And above of that there is a ok non-free driver, that is around the same level than the nvidia blob, except video acceleration.

    But its useless to talk to people that dont understand that opensource or free software is a advantage, people that use linux because of that advantage but think that a driver should not be open or at least they dont think it matters >0%

    But then I dont understand why you not use macosx or windows? because you can save 50 bucks or so? so we talk about bum users that bitch 10 hours about a hardware company because they cant pay their food if they invest 50 bucks or so into some hardware because you would loose the roof voer you when you invest that money not to your landlord or something like that?


    So you guys use Linux really because its cheaper? because you dont have enough money for windows or a mac pc? you sit 200 hours per month at your pc and cant invest 50,- euro or so more you use 5-10 year old pcs?

    ok I know america is a 3rd world country today, but really, so bad?


    But again, the nvidia linux driver is not at the same level than the windows driver, as example it has way more bugs, so thats ok, but if the amd driver has 10-20% more bugs or so, than they suck totaly, and the effort to have a nearly perfect driver that is better than the nvidia driver because its opensource, in 2 years in every aspect but fps in games and lets say in 5 years also with the fps is worth 0 nothing?

    ok so poor guys, if you are that poor people that have to fight to pay the bills, I am ok if thats the last thing that makes you happy to flame against amd, go ahead .


    I find your arguing funny, both the nvidia blob and the amd blob suck, they are both worse than their windows version. But maybe in some cases the amd blob sucks even more than the nvidia blob, yes.

    So we have 2 bad drivers, because they both are non-free, so instead of looking to free drivers, you flame against amd because their blobs suck more, than the sucking nvidia blobs. ok have fun with that, if that makes you happy.

    I find it more funny that nvidia had absolutly proven that you cant make really good gpu drivers for linux that are non-free. they tried hard but failed.

    Thats the interesting stuff I see in this discussion. I dont think its because there are no good developers that work on that driver for nvidia, they had 20 years time to make good drivers, they failed. its just that non-free software mixed with free software cant work, because you have 2 completly oposite philosophys.

    And the man-hours or diff lines or whatever that get coded on the linux-kernel gets more and more and more, nvidia cant stay on top with that. you cant figh tagainst thousends of developers and revert their changes or rewrite own versions of the stuff they develop forever, the gap between that and the when nvidia makes their own version of that stuff or even change the abis does not work.

    of course some of you will then say the mountain should come to the prophet and linux should not make abi changes from now on to ever and so on.

    it will not happen, even linus dont care about freedom he at least care about openess, and he will not completly change his very successful coding style just for retarded nvidia.
    Last edited by blackiwid; 04-30-2013 at 06:54 PM.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CFWhitman View Post
    (unless of course AMD actually switches to the open source code base for their own development, which I consider highly improbable to say the least).
    I wouldn't completely discount it: if the open source driver gets close to performance competitive with the closed one, then Ubuntu will quickly drop the "install the closed drivers" post-install recommendation. Once that happens, the majority of desktop users are going to be on the open driver. There will be little incentive for AMD to continue to plough money into a closed driver that few people are downloading and using.

    The other consideration is the emergence of Intel as a viable player for the low/mid-end market. ATI's strategy of developing two drivers, a "mid-performance open source driver" and "high-performance closed driver", might have been a reasonable one to pursue in 2007 when Nvidia was doing the same. But it is a less viable strategy in 2013 when Intel is shipping a driver that is both high-performance and open source. The fact that the popular Macbook Air & 13" Pro no longer have discrete graphics ought to be a wake up call - integrated graphics is now considered good enough for the buyers of a 2560x1600 pixel $1699 Apple laptop. The push towards smaller form factors (ultrabook/nuc) and BGA CPU mounting will put further pressure on discrete cards.

  6. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisb View Post
    But it is a less viable strategy in 2013 when Intel is shipping a driver that is both high-performance and open source.
    High Performance? Really? Did anybody compare OpenGL rendering performance of Intel proprietary driver and Intel open source driver?
    (I even doesn't talk about OpenGL 4 that supported by Intel proprietary driver.)

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisb View Post
    I wouldn't completely discount it: if the open source driver gets close to performance competitive with the closed one, then Ubuntu will quickly drop the "install the closed drivers" post-install recommendation. Once that happens, the majority of desktop users are going to be on the open driver. There will be little incentive for AMD to continue to plough money into a closed driver that few people are downloading and using.
    I think you are wrong in your idea how amd makes desitions. Its not like they dont want to give the community a top notch opensource linux driver, and they want instead have a fast blob and dont care to much about the open driver.

    I am pretty shure that its more like that: "we have a working nearly complete driver like the fglrx, we have few resources we cant hire 100 developers for linux-driver only, it will take some years to get the free driver top notch, so we should minimaly support the non-free driver, we should update it to new abis, and fix some of the biggest bugs, but other than that this driver is marked for dieing in the future"

    something like that, and why the free driver isnt a bit behind what some of us whished it would be now, are several reasons, galium3d change, patent issues or looking over the stuff to prevent such issues...

    I see that for amd it seems the linux driver isnt as big of a priority like as example the windows driver, but I think the free driver gets way more love.

    I mean yes we have some improvements on the fglrx, too, but I think much of that comes from the code-sharing of the windows-driver, not explizitly developed stuff for linux-only, so I guess it takes not much effort to migrate that stuff to linux.



    But maybe I am totaly wrong here, and amd has 100 fglrx-linux-only developers and only 5 radeon developers or so???




    I mean look at the data, yes the amd opensource driver gets fasted new features and speed, ok only feature-wise intels driver is maybe faster in getting newest features.

    But yes its medicro at the moment and of course a closed source driver that is on par with the windows speed, cant get 50% faster with some patches or so. But still the radeon driver gets faster and faster more than any other driver. And featurewise its also pretty good now.

    They startet with a r200 only driver or maybe r300? from ati with no free driver for newer chips dont forget that, at the point where amd bought ati, nvidia had a fast driver (blob only of course) and intel had a good driver. so yes in their ways there were good, but amd startet from a bad point and made because of that biggest improvements.
    Last edited by blackiwid; 04-30-2013 at 10:20 PM.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Rural Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    They startet with a r200 only driver or maybe r300? from ati with no free driver for newer chips dont forget that, at the point where amd bought ati, nvidia had a fast driver (blob only of course) and intel had a good driver. so yes in their ways there were good, but amd startet from a bad point and made because of that biggest improvements.
    Actually no, Intel's drivers used to be pretty bad. A lot has changed since then of course.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisb View Post
    The other consideration is the emergence of Intel as a viable player for the low/mid-end market. ATI's strategy of developing two drivers, a "mid-performance open source driver" and "high-performance closed driver", might have been a reasonable one to pursue in 2007 when Nvidia was doing the same.
    Nvidia never made an open-source driver?

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Nvidia never made an open-source driver?
    come on a 2d-only driver dont count.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •