Nvidia and ATI video acceleration

General discussion of show topics and feedback.

Moderators: snarkout, Patrick, dann

Post Reply
dookiesmack
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:40 pm

Nvidia and ATI video acceleration

Post by dookiesmack » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:04 pm

To start I'm a advid FPS gamer. I wanted to know, at this point, what card would be better for linux gaming Nvidia or ATI. Dann thanks for starting LaGER. I knew that if anybody would be perfect for this subject it would be you

Tsuroerusu
Posts: 2551
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:51 am
Location: Silkeborg, Denmark
Contact:

Re: Nvidia and ATI video acceleration

Post by Tsuroerusu » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:17 pm

dookiesmack wrote:To start I'm a advid FPS gamer. I wanted to know, at this point, what card would be better for linux gaming Nvidia or ATI.
NVIDIA by far!!!

Even with ATi's latest drivers, the X800 cards perform worse than NVIDIA's 6600 GT!!

Also, NVIDIA's drivers are a heck of a lot eaisier to install, manage, keep updated and deal with in general.

And also, NVIDIA releases drivers for both Windows, Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris, ATi only do Windows and Linux.
Image
Image

"Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love. This is the eternal rule."
- Siddhattha Gotama (Buddha), founder of Buddhism.

User avatar
dann
Site Admin
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 10:55 pm
Location: Hampton, Va, USA
Contact:

Post by dann » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:49 pm

I think I would agree with Tsuroerusu on this, Nvidia has a stranglehold on the market and their binary drivers for Linux seem to be the best. Of course, this taints the kernel; but performance wise and ease of use, Nvidia edges out ATI right now. Perhaps in the future this will change.

You question makes me realize I have to now start paying more attention to graphic card reviews for all systems, not only Linux.

Tsuroerusu
Posts: 2551
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:51 am
Location: Silkeborg, Denmark
Contact:

Post by Tsuroerusu » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:57 pm

dann wrote:Nvidia has a stranglehold on the market and their binary drivers for Linux seem to be the best.
Well, there are actually more ATi cards out there than NVIDIA cards.
Like Linus Torvalds once said "Microsoft isn't evil, they just make really crappy operating systems.", I say: "ATi aren't evil, they just make really really crappy drivers!".
That informative enough? :P

dann wrote:Of course, this taints the kernel; but performance wise and ease of use, Nvidia edges out ATI right now. Perhaps in the future this will change.
Especially under SUSE Linux, NVIDIA is VERY easy to manage, in 10.0 you just check a checkbox and it will install the driver. 10.1 is gonna be a little different, but should be pretty easy as well.

dann wrote:You question makes me realize I have to now start paying more attention to graphic card reviews for all systems, not only Linux.
Well, in general it's like this: ATi's bruteforce performance is usually better than NVIDIA's, but the quality of NVIDIA's drivers 0wn that of ATi's by several sky scrapers!!!
Image
Image

"Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love. This is the eternal rule."
- Siddhattha Gotama (Buddha), founder of Buddhism.

User avatar
Ryochan7
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:18 pm
Location: Peoria, IL
Contact:

Post by Ryochan7 » Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:08 am

Nvidia is where it at yo. I used to be a really big ATI fan before I started doing some major Linux gaming. The performance hit that occurs when running the same games on Linux compared to Windows really made me start looking into Nvidia cards. For cross-platform games like Doom 3, I find that the performance with Nvidia cards with the official drivers is generally a comparable experience when comparing the performance in Windows and Linux. The fact that Nvidia also makes drivers that work on FreeBSD is nice.
Linux User #357977
LUGOP is awesome

Tsuroerusu
Posts: 2551
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:51 am
Location: Silkeborg, Denmark
Contact:

Post by Tsuroerusu » Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:46 am

Ryochan7 wrote:Nvidia is where it at yo. I used to be a really big ATI fan before I started doing some major Linux gaming. The performance hit that occurs when running the same games on Linux compared to Windows really made me start looking into Nvidia cards.
Even when I was using Windows, I found NVIDIA's drivers much much more solid, they just work, you don't get any crap installed very clean stuff.

Ryochan7 wrote:For cross-platform games like Doom 3, I find that the performance with Nvidia cards with the official drivers is generally a comparable experience when comparing the performance in Windows and Linux.
In Unreal Tournament 2004 I actually found the performance better! On my machine, the game usually runs more smoothly, and it seems the UNIX way of doing memory management is better in this case. I also used to run Warcraft III via Cedega, and even that ran better under Linux. So, kudos to NVIDIA!!
Image
Image

"Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love. This is the eternal rule."
- Siddhattha Gotama (Buddha), founder of Buddhism.

User avatar
Ryochan7
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:18 pm
Location: Peoria, IL
Contact:

Post by Ryochan7 » Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:05 am

Tsuroerusu wrote:Even when I was using Windows, I found NVIDIA's drivers much much more solid, they just work, you don't get any crap installed very clean stuff.
I typically didn't have many problems with the Catalyst drivers when I used to own an ATI card, although I always heard about people having problems with certain games. The one game that I even remember having a problem with was The Return of the King demo. I never liked the extra crap that ATI bundled with the drivers either but I always disabled the extra programs that I had no use for.
Tsuroerusu wrote:In Unreal Tournament 2004 I actually found the performance better! On my machine, the game usually runs more smoothly, and it seems the UNIX way of doing memory management is better in this case. I also used to run Warcraft III via Cedega, and even that ran better under Linux. So, kudos to NVIDIA!!
I agree with you about UT2004. I find that the game runs more smoothly on Linux and that loading times are better. That is the case with most of the cross-platform games that I have played. The only real downfall, one that Windows gamers check often, is the fps test. While framerates might vary a bit and better framerates can be achieved when playing certain parts of a game on Linux, benchmarking sometimes does show that Windows can have a slight advantage in the average fps. One benchmark program that I have messed with fairly recently is Umark. Umark is a benchmark app that works with the UT2003 and UT2004 games along with both demos. Overall though, even if there is a 1 fps increase when running a benchmark app or playing a game on Windows, I have gotten to the point where playing games on Windows isn't worth the hassle.

As for Cedega, I used to like it before I really started using it extensively. Cedega has some major problems with memory leaks. I don't like having to quit a game after like two hours just because almost all my system memory is being used up and the game starts running slowly. Maybe I am just being picky because I am surprised that some games can run as well as they do. I haven't encountered a game that performs better on Cedega than on Windows but I bet there probably are games that do.

One thing that I have noticed with some games, like Doom 3 or any game that I have played with Cedega (such as KOTOR and Jedi Academy) is that the texture quality seems to be a bit better for some reason. I know that it's not just me because I even remember reading a review of Doom 3 and comparing the Linux client to the Windows client a while back when the reviewer noticed that the texture quality of everything in the game was better on Linux. The review had screenshots of comparable scenes posted as well. It must be OpenGL magic. :)
Linux User #357977
LUGOP is awesome

Tsuroerusu
Posts: 2551
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:51 am
Location: Silkeborg, Denmark
Contact:

Post by Tsuroerusu » Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:18 am

Ryochan7 wrote:I typically didn't have many problems with the Catalyst drivers when I used to own an ATI card, although I always heard about people having problems with certain games. The one game that I even remember having a problem with was The Return of the King demo. I never liked the extra crap that ATI bundled with the drivers either but I always disabled the extra programs that I had no use for.
To ATi's credit they also had a driver package without all the extra crap in it, but still, a driver should just be a driver, with maybe a few utilities for fine tuning stuff, but nothing else than that. Take Creative for example, their Soundblaster drivers are also pretty good, but they freaking bundle so much crap with it that you have to go through the Windows device manager to install them off the CD, good thing they aren't in control of the Linux drivers and bundle crap with it!

Ryochan7 wrote:I agree with you about UT2004. I find that the game runs more smoothly on Linux and that loading times are better. That is the case with most of the cross-platform games that I have played. The only real downfall, one that Windows gamers check often, is the fps test. While framerates might vary a bit and better framerates can be achieved when playing certain parts of a game on Linux, benchmarking sometimes does show that Windows can have a slight advantage in the average fps. One benchmark program that I have messed with fairly recently is Umark. Umark is a benchmark app that works with the UT2003 and UT2004 games along with both demos. Overall though, even if there is a 1 fps increase when running a benchmark app or playing a game on Windows, I have gotten to the point where playing games on Windows isn't worth the hassle.
Well, synthetic benchmarks are not a good way to measure real world performance. An example of this would be Apple's new Intel Macs, in theory the PowerPC architecture should be superior to x86, but with with the new iMac for example, application launch much faster and it's in general a much more smooth and snappy desktop, or so I've heard (About 50 times on TWiT).

Ryochan7 wrote:As for Cedega, I used to like it before I really started using it extensively. Cedega has some major problems with memory leaks. I don't like having to quit a game after like two hours just because almost all my system memory is being used up and the game starts running slowly. Maybe I am just being picky because I am surprised that some games can run as well as they do. I haven't encountered a game that performs better on Cedega than on Windows but I bet there probably are games that do.
Cedega has gotten much better lately, the 5.x series is really good, and the latest runs very nicely. I had a 2½ hour Medal of Honor session last night, and boy did it run well, no lags, no hickups, and at a really high resolution. I like running games at the same resolution that I run my desktop at, and in my case I'm at 1280x1024, and Medal of Honor ran fine, but of course that is an old game, but older games tend to work better, kinda like the case with hardware a few years ago.
Image
Image

"Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love. This is the eternal rule."
- Siddhattha Gotama (Buddha), founder of Buddhism.

User avatar
Ryochan7
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:18 pm
Location: Peoria, IL
Contact:

Post by Ryochan7 » Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:24 am

Tsuroerusu wrote:Cedega has gotten much better lately, the 5.x series is really good, and the latest runs very nicely. I had a 2½ hour Medal of Honor session last night, and boy did it run well, no lags, no hickups, and at a really high resolution. I like running games at the same resolution that I run my desktop at, and in my case I'm at 1280x1024, and Medal of Honor ran fine, but of course that is an old game, but older games tend to work better, kinda like the case with hardware a few years ago.
I used version 5.0.1 to play Knights of the Old Republic and the problems that I mentioned occured with that version. KOTOR ran really well most of the time but after about two hours of gameplay the game would start running slow and would gradually become unplayble.
Linux User #357977
LUGOP is awesome

Tsuroerusu
Posts: 2551
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:51 am
Location: Silkeborg, Denmark
Contact:

Post by Tsuroerusu » Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:06 am

Ryochan7 wrote:I used version 5.0.1 to play Knights of the Old Republic and the problems that I mentioned occured with that version. KOTOR ran really well most of the time but after about two hours of gameplay the game would start running slow and would gradually become unplayble.
I'm using 5.1.1 and I didn't have any problems, hmmm, weird.
Image
Image

"Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love. This is the eternal rule."
- Siddhattha Gotama (Buddha), founder of Buddhism.

Post Reply