Those efforts should be put on open source friendly cards.

Posted Mar 31, 2009 4:21 UTC (Tue) by zlynx (guest, #2285)
In reply to: Those efforts should be put on open source friendly cards. by jwb
Parent article: Testing Out The Nouveau Driver On Fedora 11 (Phoronix)

If you want top performance, you *must* have an Nvidia card.

If you want a binary driver for Linux that does almost everything the Windows driver does, and is (in my opinion) better supported and more stable than ATI's Catalyst, you must have Nvidia.

That said, the latest computer I built has an ATI/AMD 4850. But every machine of mine before that (about 5 systems), between my Matrox G200 to my AMD 4850 has had an Nvidia card. Because they are the best.

I no longer choose to pay premium prices for the best video cards but that does not mean Nvidia's product is somehow "awful."

to post comments

Those efforts should be put on open source friendly cards.

Posted Mar 31, 2009 10:50 UTC (Tue) by sp.at (guest, #36249) [Link] (8 responses)

I am actively using an AMD HD4350 in my workstation under GNU/Linux too, and to be honest, it didn't even came to my mind to install ATI/AMD's catalyst driver.

When I bought and set up this system about two months ago I went straight ahead and installed the r6xx-r7xx-support branch of the radeonhd driver from git. As the development effort moved to the master branch I have switched over and right now am using the bleeding-edge version too, updating it once or twice a week.

Now you might ask how many problems or crashes I experienced and the truth is: not one.
To be honest I have not been doing anything 3D-heavy on this system, but 2D performance and stability is great, and the most important thing, that driver is not proprietary and if problems show up I could investigate them myself and try to come up with a solution.

So, with an AMD card I get pretty good performance from a free driver that seems to behave well, even when using the bleeding edge code from the freedesktop.org git repository, what would I want else?

Technically the Nvidia cards might be better compared to other vendor's cards, but what does that help if I have to rely on a binary driver?

I went for "worse is better" there and now it seems to me that it isn't worse after all.

Those efforts should be put on open source friendly cards.

Posted Mar 31, 2009 14:49 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (7 responses)

For example, you might want to use CUDA or OpenCL. Or may be OpenGL 3.

NVidia's driver is proprietary, but it's actually quite good.

Those efforts should be put on open source friendly cards.

Posted Mar 31, 2009 17:11 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (3 responses)

> NVidia's driver is proprietary, but it's actually quite good.

It's quite _fast_. What is "good" is much more subjective. It's crash happy and makes end user's lives more difficult when it comes to keeping their machines up to date.

Nvidia is the only game in town when it comes to having high performance GPU drivers, right now. If you need your machine for other purposes it may be best to stay away from it.

-----------------------

The nice thing about reverse engineered drivers is that it puts a nice shot through the heart about the theory that keeping your drivers closed source is going to prevent people from learning how your hardware operates.

That is if a few open source folks operating on the internet with a shoestring budget can learn enough about the hardware for working 3D drivers (which is going to be exponentially more complex then pretty much any other hardware device on your computer) then trying to hide your hardware interfaces behind a wall of machine code is a huge waste of time. Imagine what a couple guys getting paid full time from ATI can learn about that hardware using high-end equipment and such.

Dispelling myths and illusions about 'IP' like that is more then worthy enough for a reverse engineered Nvidia driver.

Those efforts should be put on open source friendly cards.

Posted Mar 31, 2009 23:13 UTC (Tue) by PaulWay (guest, #45600) [Link] (2 responses)

I think statements like "crash happy" and "expensive" and "fast" are pretty subjective without supporting evidence. The evidence I've seen is that NVidia's cards are slightly cheaper on the bang-for-the-buck scale, and the NVidia proprietary driver has been a lot more stable than the ATI cards until relatively recently.

I see it as basically a problem of inertia. NVidia's managers probably see themselves as doing their bit for open source, but they grew up in the 3Dfx/Matrox/Trident world where everything was fiercely competitive - to open source their drivers is probably seen as giving their competitors an advantage. So they do their part by at least giving us something, but still want to keep their secrets.

This 'competitive advantage' is really a fiction, as the architectures of the chips even in the NVidia range are different enough to require separate handling per chip - the difference between the processing architectures of ATI and NVidia and Intel graphics chips must be a gigantic chasm compared with the gap between individual chips. It's also pretty much irrelevant given all the standard arguments for open sourcing - lower development costs, faster bug spotting and fixing, better standards compliance and better community involvement to name the prominent ones.

I think we'll see a change at NVidia eventually. What it'll take is for someone internally to drive the process - compare Dirk Hohndel at Intel and Harald Welte now at Via.

Those efforts should be put on open source friendly cards.

Posted Apr 1, 2009 19:41 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (1 responses)

http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/03/vista-capable-lawsuit-paints-picture-of-buggy-nvidia-drivers.ars

Microsoft's data strongly indicates that the problems were real. Damon Poeter at CRN dug through the documentation to find that on page 47 of the PDF, NVIDIA drivers were identified as the cause of over 479,000 crashes, or just under 29 percent of all the crashes Microsoft logged. Microsoft's own drivers follow, at 17.9 percent, and the "Unknown" category takes third place at 17 percent. ATI is in fourth place (9.3 percent) and Intel in fifth place (8.83 percent).

If they crash windows that much and the Linux drivers are the same driver shoehorned into Linux what would you think of their stability without other data?

Those efforts should be put on open source friendly cards.

Posted Apr 3, 2009 4:20 UTC (Fri) by Kit (guest, #55925) [Link]

IIRC, those statistics were from shortly after Vista's release, when NVIDIA's Vista drivers were still incredibly immature. I don't realy think that source is very useful for determining the quality of a mature driver on another platform.

Those efforts should be put on open source friendly cards.

Posted Mar 31, 2009 17:45 UTC (Tue) by Alterego (guest, #55989) [Link] (1 responses)

Does the nouveau driver provide openCL, cuda, or openGL 3 ?

ATI provide "Stream Computing" SDK and should soon be OpenCL 1.0 and openGL 3.

I still think it would have been a much better effort to develop ATI opensource drivers rather than nvidia.

Those efforts should be put on open source friendly cards.

Posted Apr 1, 2009 9:03 UTC (Wed) by luya (subscriber, #50741) [Link]

Lets not forget nouveau development is done on Gallium3D framework. It will be a matter of time to support those features.

Those efforts should be put on open source friendly cards.

Posted Apr 2, 2009 3:00 UTC (Thu) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link]

NVidia's driver is proprietary, but it's actually quite good.

Good?

I dont think that word means what you think it does.

Those efforts should be put on open source friendly cards.

Posted Mar 31, 2009 17:28 UTC (Tue) by Alterego (guest, #55989) [Link] (1 responses)

> If you want top performance, you *must* have an Nvidia card.

The benchmarks i have read show that NVidia and ATI are equal. Do you have url, comparing both and prices too?

Those efforts should be put on open source friendly cards.

Posted Apr 1, 2009 2:09 UTC (Wed) by zlynx (guest, #2285) [Link]

http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=3538
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3498&p=9
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/nvidia_geforce_g...

Or look at the reviews on http://www.hardocp.com/ Go there and click Main menu: GPU / Video
Cards and check out their results.

The Nvidia stuff isn't always faster, it can depend on what game it is running.

For price, you can spend up to $2400 (four cards, $600 each). Really that would be ridiculous.
But you could.