It's better to have an nvidia or an ati graphiccark.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:44 PM, mrxgerman <wineforum-user at winehq.org> wrote:> It's better to have an nvidia or an ati graphiccark. >Read the list archives about video corruption in wine and you will find that most of the problems reported are from ati card owners.
all other arguments aside, one thing to keep in mind is that nvidia has had a massive problem with numerous versions of their chipsets (i don't recall the specifics but it went across a large percentage of their product over the last few months). theregister.co.uk had some articles on it and you can do a google for "nvidia defective chipsets" for larger coverage. i have yet to see anything indicating they have actually fixed the problem (though one would think they have by now) but whether they have or not, as far as i know they are not doing a recall, leaving the recalls up to the various resellers (dell, hp, etc.) who are not recalling, either. the implication is that once the fixed replacements are out in the market there will be no way of determining which nvidia you run across will be good or defective. i also don't know if the only problems were on the motherboard chipsets or if it also infected the separate graphics cards. hopefully someone can clarify, but this is something to remain aware of until these defective chips are no longer available. On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 1:44 PM, mrxgerman <wineforum-user at winehq.org> wrote:> It's better to have an nvidia or an ati graphiccark. > > > > > >-- since this is a gmail account, please verify the mailing list is included in the reply to addresses
[quote="mrxgerman"graphiccark.[/quote] What's that? If you mean graphics card, then the only viable solution for Linux is nVidia. ATi(AMD) has crappy broken drivers. I'm not implying that nVidia cards are better then ATi. Nor that nVidia drivers don't have problems. They just have less problems and more features working. And it's been that way for years.
mrxgerman wrote:> It's better to have an nvidia or an ati graphiccark.We have always used Nvidia but are not planning to continue for our next round of card upgrades. Assuming good progress on Linux drivers we will be switching to ATI, partly because we have always had fantastic luck with AMD products and it seems they are making the ATI name meet their standards.. Nvidia is having chipset problems and too much of what I have read comes across as them knowing about the problems but selling the products anyway. That is not the type of business practice I wish to encourage with my money. ATI's new cards are looking very good and from what I can tell there should be stable Linux drivers available by the time I upgrade, so unless that changes I will go ATI. If you need a new card for use in Linux right now you might want to research the bug reports for the cards and pick what is in your price range that looks good, chances are high it will be Nvidia. If you are holding off on the purchase for a while the Nvidia/ATI driver gap may have closed enough for you to choose based on which card best meets your needs overall. To be fair the Nvidia cards we have currently in use are from the 7000 series and all work fine, no Linux glitches, no driver hassles, no bad chips. We tried one from the 8000 series and it was garbage (an old 6000 series gave better graphics and frame rates), but that may have just been that model combined with our hardware. Tricia
vitamin wrote:> ... > If you mean graphics card, then the only viable solution for> Linux is nVidia. ATi(AMD) has crappy broken drivers... Are there no opensource drivers for ATI/AMD chipsets? I remember reading that they were better than nVidia about sharing their hardware specs. OTOH that was a long time ago before the merger.
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 13:44 -0500, mrxgerman wrote:> It's better to have an nvidia or an ati graphiccark.I've always bought ATI cards because of their open-source drivers. For a while these were a bit sketchy, but AMD is now releasing more info for devs, and the drivers are advancing nicely. Of course this is from the perspective of someone who doesn't really do a lot of gaming. For 2D rendering, compiz, hardware accelerated video etc, the Radeon drivers are very good. Also I've got a Geforce 4 MX here at work and I can't upgrade to xserver-1.5 because nVidia haven't released drivers for it yet, and it's unclear whether they ever will ( it's in the 'legacy' category that they don't like to support ). I understand a lot of people here poo-poo ATI's drivers and are even more critical of the open-source radeon drivers. I suppose the point is that it's possible to fix the radeon drivers looking forward, whereas with an nVidia you're always dependant on them to fix things for you, and to release a driver that will work with a recent xserver. Dan
tparker wrote:> mrxgerman wrote: > > > It's better to have an nvidia or an ati graphiccark. > > > > ATI's new cards are looking very good and from what I can tell there should be stable Linux drivers available by the time I upgrade, so unless that changes I will go ATI. > > If you need a new card for use in Linux right now you might want to > research the bug reports for the cards and pick what is in your price > range that looks good, chances are high it will be Nvidia. If you are > holding off on the purchase for a while the Nvidia/ATI driver gap may > have closed enough for you to choose based on which card best meets your > needs overall. > > To be fair the Nvidia cards we have currently in use are from the 7000 > series and all work fine, no Linux glitches, no driver hassles, no bad > chips. We tried one from the 8000 series and it was garbage (an old 6000 > series gave better graphics and frame rates), but that may have just > been that model combined with our hardware. > > TriciaI've had a 8800 for the past 18 months and I've never had a problem with it over many driver revisions. It's definitely many times superior to the 6xxx series.
Daniel Kasak wrote:> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 18:33 -0500, Austin English wrote: > > > > That said, I like to support companies that support open source, but > > for some things, such as graphics drivers, performance is more > > important than principle. > > > > Sure. If you've got unlimited funds and are willing to compromise your > principles.You can take that one and show it up you know what. If you so care about principles what are you doing here at all?! What you need Wine for? To run closed source software??!! Where did your principals go? If you still satisfied with 2D graphics and performance - then Matrox would be the best choice for you. And yes it does have open source drivers. That are still better then all this "radion" crap. If you bother to look in Wine bugzilla you will see that most modern games don't work at all on ATi cards (with closed source drivers). While open source drivers are just barely enough to run compiz by itself. And they just learned to do that. Before you couldn't even use compiz on those.
It seems the Core of Discussion is not about Graphics, but about politics. The Question the OP has to answer before himself is, if greater performance is more worth than Openness. Most ppl. would say yes, and thus encouraging Companies like Nvidia to continue in their doings... So the Question gets transformed to "Do i value openness of the OS higher than some framerates or featuresets" (Btw. Games and drivers for linux is sort of a vicious circle. Both ones do not get better by the lack of the other.) In my case, i do. Thats why i "only" own a litte centrino-Notebook with intel-graphics. And i never have to worry about breaking drivers with new kernels or X-versions ;) For me, no Game on earth is worth selling my soul. greetings, me p.s. pls. do not take anything of this as an affront... its just my personal opinion. "Clemens Eisserer" <linuxhippy at gmail.com> schrieb am 21.10.2008 11:13:>Hi,> Come to think of it, John is the ONLY developer working on games for > Linux.No, he isn't. At least Epic is there too. With the rising of OSX the chance is not too small that OpenGL will survive, and that drivers (at least from companies with unified-driver code) will be higher quality than they are now.> The rest decided it was not financially worth it a LONG time ago > and are sticking with Windows and a few are actually now developing for > the Mac platform. See, you have to recoup those costs and they are very > high.The problem are most of the time unexperienced developers as well as not-portable frameworks used. Those frameworks have been used ofter the past years. If you choose the right technologies at project start, portability comes for free. lg Clemens