6 ms·

I use Mint, where I have always been using the proprietary NVIDIA drivers. I remember Radeon drivers used be pretty bad. But that was a few years ago. Has the s

I use Mint, where I have always been using the proprietary NVIDIA drivers. I remember Radeon drivers used be pretty bad. But that was a few years ago. Has the situation changed? I am open to suggestions. Thanks.

snvzz 10y ago
AMD doesn't have a closed kernel component anymore. They do still have a userspace component, but most people use the free 3d acceleration instead, written with NDA-free documentation provided by AMD, with the help of AMD employees. This covers hardware up to their current generation, providing OpenGL 4.5 and Vulkan. Its performance is not as good as the Windows drivers, but good enough enough for most games out there. Thanks to this, their hardware just works out of the box on any distribution that's not years behind. As you don't even need to play games, I believe AMD is the better option here.
- eng_monkey 10y ago
  I appreciate the advice. What would be the AMD equivalent to say a GeForce GTX950? Because this is the NVIDIA model that seems more than enough for my needs. Thanks.
  - snvzz 10y ago
    Maybe RX460.
- braveo 10y ago
  I just switched from AMD to NVidia because of driver issue. I run Arch Linux, and my experience is that installing NVidia drivers is miles ahead of AMD.
  - madez 10y ago
    I have experience with NVIDIA and AMD GPUs on Linux-systems and my experience with AMD was vastly superior. The difference was so significant that I rule out buying a NVIDIA card.
  - striking 10y ago
    I run Arch and amdgpu was installed as a kernel driver out of the box. If you have an RX GPU, or any other one supported by the new drivers, you're going to have a great time.
    - braveo 10y ago
      I couldn't get hardware acceleration without recompiling the kernel.
nl 10y ago
On Linux, your best bet is Intel which will drive that just fine[1] (for non-gaming use) [1] https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/308602-onboard-gpu-enough-for-driving-3440x1440/ https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/308602-onboard-gpu-enou... (note this is a HD4600. Newer Intel graphics is more powerful).

snvzz 10y ago

AMD doesn't have a closed kernel component anymore. They do still have a userspace component, but most people use the free 3d acceleration instead, written with NDA-free documentation provided by AMD, with the help of AMD employees. This covers hardware up to their current generation, providing OpenGL 4.5 and Vulkan. Its performance is not as good as the Windows drivers, but good enough enough for most games out there. Thanks to this, their hardware just works out of the box on any distribution that's not years behind. As you don't even need to play games, I believe AMD is the better option here.

eng_monkey 10y ago
I appreciate the advice. What would be the AMD equivalent to say a GeForce GTX950? Because this is the NVIDIA model that seems more than enough for my needs. Thanks.
- snvzz 10y ago
  Maybe RX460.
braveo 10y ago
I just switched from AMD to NVidia because of driver issue. I run Arch Linux, and my experience is that installing NVidia drivers is miles ahead of AMD.
- madez 10y ago
  I have experience with NVIDIA and AMD GPUs on Linux-systems and my experience with AMD was vastly superior. The difference was so significant that I rule out buying a NVIDIA card.
- striking 10y ago
  I run Arch and amdgpu was installed as a kernel driver out of the box. If you have an RX GPU, or any other one supported by the new drivers, you're going to have a great time.
  - braveo 10y ago
    I couldn't get hardware acceleration without recompiling the kernel.

nl 10y ago

On Linux, your best bet is Intel which will drive that just fine[1] (for non-gaming use) [1] https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/308602-onboard-gpu-enough-for-driving-3440x1440/ https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/308602-onboard-gpu-enou... (note this is a HD4600. Newer Intel graphics is more powerful).