13 ms·

AMD has been working for years to make them the most Linux friendly GPU option. Sadly the legacy of the Linux community talks like AMD doesn't work in Linux and

AMD has been working for years to make them the most Linux friendly GPU option. Sadly the legacy of the Linux community talks like AMD doesn't work in Linux and NVIDIA is the only real choice. Kind of like Windows users complaining about AMD drivers when they haven't been an issue for over five years. I had AMD on my Linux boxes for eight years and I have haven't had an issue for the past six years.

katastic 9y ago
>to make them the most Linux friendly GPU option. Intel works quite fine. I'm pretty sure it's just nVidia that's the problem.
- iforgotpassword 9y ago
  Agreed; but they were probably referring to big beefy GPUs, so you only have team green and team red.
Asooka 9y ago
The problem is AMD (and Intel) require a lot of moving pieces to come together to make a fully stable system, while nVidia is more of a complete packaged solution. For me, I tried AMD (neé ATI) once in 2003 and the experience was so bad, I just completely swore them off. I have literally never had nVidia's drivers crash and kill my X session, or hard-lock the kernel, which were frequent problems with both ATI's closed-source drivers and Intel's open-source drivers. I don't see myself ever buying anything other than nVidia ever again.
- sammoth 9y ago
  Why would you base that decision solely on your experience 14 years ago? The driver is completely different now.
- jhasse 9y ago
  > 2003 You had a problem with ATI's closed-source driver 14 years ago. AMD's open-source driver now is a COMPLETELY different story.
  - distances 9y ago
    > You had a problem with ATI's closed-source driver 14 years ago. AMD's open-source driver now is a COMPLETELY different story. Indeed. In 2003 no-one would have based their expectations on what happened in 1989. 14 years is an eternity in this field.
  - Asooka 9y ago
    Yes, and it was bad enough that I decided to never ever buy from that company again. For the record, I did have the displeasure of using an AMD GPU in 2010, because that's what my employer at the time purchased, and it was only slightly more stable. I am absolutely convinced that nobody except nVidia can produce stable, working video drivers. The last 14 years haven't produced a counter-example.
    - jhasse 9y ago
      You're personifying companies way too much.
    - baldfat 9y ago
      Also do you also refuse to use RPM based distros due to dependency hell? Also GOOD NEWS ATI is dead, it wasn't AMD that manufactured the Card or the Drivers! It was a company called ATI based in Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies AMD bought them 2006 and killed ATI brand 3 years later. Also I bet you only a handful of people actually still work on the technology.
    - Zardoz84 9y ago
      I had a bad experience with an ATI card many years ago with a Ubuntu box. And line you, I said that I would never buy an ATI GPU. Actually my computer have a RX580 and work like a dream (On windows and Linux)
- bryanlarsen 9y ago
  My experience in 2017 is the complete opposite. The nVidia binary driver is the only thing I experience that causes me significant pain, including system lockups. Unfortunately we use CUDA, but as soon as ROCm matures, I'm going to be strongly advocating a switch away from nVidia. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15877262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15877262
- StudentStuff 9y ago
  Huh? Intel drivers have been fine for at least the past decade, when I was much younger I remember toting around a laptop with an A4 APU running the libre drivers just fine too.
- baldfat 9y ago
  > 2003 Read the offical documentation on Linux with SUSE and NVIDIA. http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display_ia32_1.0-4363.html http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display_ia32_1.0-4363.htm... Linux in 2003 is a totally different beast today. Tell me you got your wifi working or NVIDIA with a working desktop out of the box. I would sit in the terminal and have to install proprietary drivers just to see Gnome or KDE. I would have to sit by the Ethernet port for a while till I got wifi working. Read this forum post I can post hundreds of these because I read them all trying to get my card to work. I had to edit my X11 configs by hand till around 2008??? https://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/showthread.php/157517-How-to-install-openGL-under-Linux-Debian https://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/showthread.php/1575...
badsectoracula 9y ago
While NVIDIA is far from the only choice and AMD has improved dramatically these days to the point where they are within NVIDIA's performance reach, NVIDIA still dominates the higher end side [1] and they do have by far the most complete and stable OpenGL implementation (with the Mesa front end on AMD you do not even get a compatibility profile - a major disaster IMO - whereas on the other hand NVIDIA not only gives you that but in some cases using it you can get a huge bang for your buck in terms of performance). [1] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=16way-gpu-aug17 https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=16way-gp...
- vetinari 9y ago
  I'm curious - what would you need OpenGL compatibility profile for?
  - rnhmjoj 9y ago
    I have no idea why but there are video games (even fairly recent ones) that requires the compatibility profile. No Man's Sky and Dying Light for example.
  - badsectoracula 9y ago
    Regardless of what i'd personally need it for, it is still something that NVIDIA's drivers provide and AMD/Mesa lack and thus a negative on Mesa's side (especially considering that NVIDIA not only provides all that extra stuff but they still manage to be faster than the implementations - like Mesa and Apple - that do not). Now as for what I would need the compatibility profile, it is very simple: i just find it more convenient to use so i have a ton of code that uses it. The original idea for the separation of profiles was that the core profile would make implementing OpenGL easier and make it faster but neither of those actually happened (as i said, NVIDIA despite implementing the entirety of OpenGL is still the fastest implementation) while i really disagree with the idea of pushing the complex bits towards the end users (of the API) in order to avoid the implementors doing it. It is better to have 1 developer on the driver/implementation side handle the complexity that 1000 users (of the API) are going to enjoy than have each one of those 1000 users make 1000 individual solutions to that complexity, thus multiplying the time spent on the complexity by 1000 (this of course applies to all tech that by itself is "simple" only because it pushes the hard bits to its clients - see Wayland as another example). Ok, so actually i have two reasons, one practical (i find it convenient) and one more ideological (pushing complexity upwards). Actually i have two ideological reasons, the second (and actually more important) is that i dislike backwards incompatible breakage in APIs and libraries (unless that API is meant for internal or utility use, of course, or is in beta/development stage). This is a much bigger issue though, so let's leave it at that :-P.
green7ea 9y ago
I couldn't agree more. I'm a full time Linux user and have recently switched to AMD because of their awesome open source support. My new system is the most responsive and stable Linux experience I've ever had. I just recently build a full AMD system (Ryzen 5, Radeon RX 560) and I couldn't be happier. I've had Intel systems that were fine but couldn't keep up with GPU performance. I've also had nvidia systems that were fine performance wise but the closed nvidia driver has been more and more problematic lately (crashes, VSync is off, etc.). Not only that but it's all free software. When freesync support lands I can't image ever using anything but AMD under Linux.
- snuxoll 9y ago
  NVidia has always been more of a pain under Linux for at least the past 5 years, even if AMD wasn't contributing much to the open source drivers code-wise at the time they published hardware specifications for their cards so the mesa and DRM developers could do a halfway decent job. My Radeon R9 290 worked quite well without installing fglrx, as did my Radeon HD 7850. I'm actually at the point where I need an upgrade for my work laptop, and I am going to seriously push for something that doesn't use NVidia graphics since they're such a pain to deal with under Linux (especially Optimus, holy crap).
rhaps0dy 9y ago
Semi-relatedly and unfortunately, AI research is locked-in to NVIDIA (on Linux) because all the big lienar algebra and autodifferentiation frameworks work only with CUDA.
- lloeki 9y ago
  This is totally not my field so it may very well be the stupidest question ever: is there technically anything that prevents implementing CUDA on top of non-NVIDIA hardware?
  - FnuGk 9y ago
    CUDA is made by nvidia
    - baldfat 9y ago
      Not sure why you were down voted. CUDA is developed by NVIDIA. CUDA is a registered trademark by NVIDIA - https://trademarks.justia.com/850/30/cuda-85030071.html https://trademarks.justia.com/850/30/cuda-85030071.html Here is the CUDA webpage https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-zone https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-zone
      - iforgotpassword 9y ago
        Because it's a pointless answer that basically just repeats part of the question, providing absolutely no new information.
        baldfat 9y ago
        Well I think it makes a short answer NVIDIA doesn't let their proprietary CUDA technology work on non-NVIDIA devices.
  - orbifold 9y ago
    No there isn't, Google developed a CUDA frontend for clang/llvm which targets PTX (nvidias virtual machine instruction set), in principle someone could come along and implement a different backend for this frontend targeting for example AMDs gpu instruction architecture or something different. The other ingredient missing is a reimplementation of CUDAs runtime libraries.
dijit 9y ago
This does not mirror my experience. I have a machine with amdgpu drivers installed. I specifically installed ubuntu instead of arch or something more exotic because i knew there would be issues. And i was right. I can use the OpenCL now but I can't use x11 because the driver uses old ABIs. My experience with Nvidias binary blobs even on systems like freebsd has been stellar in comparison.
- dijit 9y ago
  I should add that I generally dont like nvidia either. Intel is the GPU of choice generally, but sometimes you need the compute.
- ubercow13 9y ago
  Why are you using the closed source driver?
- majewsky 9y ago
  > I specifically installed ubuntu instead of arch or something more exotic because i knew there would be issues. You should try Arch. I'm using AMDGPU with X11 on Arch since late 2015 (when full support for my card entered the mainline kernel) and I had exactly zero issues. Just installed the driver packages, rebooted and everything worked (xrandr, power mgmt, OpenGL, games, etc.). Maybe your issue is trying to use the proprietary blobs (aka AMDGPU-PRO). I never used these (and I don't know why I should).
- Symmetry 9y ago
  Compute is something of a problem for AMD GPUs right now. The open source driver is wonderfully stable and performant for gaming but to use it for OpenCL you really want to use the proprietary driver instead which is also pretty performant but sometimes has weird behaviors.
- floatboth 9y ago
  I'm using amdgpu on FreeBSD (-CURRENT, drm-next-kmod), with Vulkan (RADV) + Wayland, it's awesome :) Yeah, OpenCL is a problem, clover crashes, the new AMD OpenCL driver is not ported yet (I guess it depends on kernel 4.15? we have amdgpu from 4.12 for now)... I wish people started using Vulkan for compute instead of OpenCL!!
cleeus 9y ago
I bought an AMD card for my Linux desktop this year, because they have better open source drivers then nVidia :) Before that, I bought nVidia or Intel. It's a good feeling to run without that ugly nvidia-drivers blob.
ensignavenger 9y ago
I built a new system recently, Ryzen 7 with an AMD Vega 64... I've yet to get the Vega 64 to work right with Debian Testing (Or Ubuntu 17.10/16.04). I am hoping I have some time to fiddle with it and maybe get it working before Christmas :)
- baldfat 9y ago
  I have heard that Vega 64 has some serious thermal issues. My friend has one on Windows and it caused him so much trouble he sold it used (For a profit) and got a Vega 52.
- foepys 9y ago
  Vega cards will be supported in Linux 4.15 onwards with mesa drivers. Linux 4.12, 4.13, and 4.14 do support Vega cards but not for display output. You'll have to use AMD's proprietary drivers for now.
  - ensignavenger 9y ago
    I plan to try the 4.15 rc. But then I don't know for what all I need on top of that. Phoronix has some articles on the topic, but they don't provide much specifics. I did try their proprietary drivers, too, but did not have any luck. Maybe I'll have time to tinker with it tomorrow. It would have been nice to have out of the box support :) I suppose they will get there eventually.
- ensignavenger 9y ago
  In case anyone else is wondering, I was able to get my Vega 64 working, just required building the latest 4.15 RC kernel :)
danieldk 9y ago
I fully agree. My workstation came with an NVIDIA Quadro and it had a lot of driver issues. The proprietary drivers did not work with Wayland and with the open source drivers the screen would regularly flicker, not come out of display sleep, etc. Based on the positive comments wrt. the amdgpu driver I bought an AMD FirePro W2100 (because its max TDP is 25W). And it's been excellent. Since GCN 1.0 and 1.1 are supported by both the radeon and amdgpu drivers, I use the kernel flags amdgpu.si_support=1 radeon.si_support=0 amdgpu.cik_support=1 radeon.ciksupport=0 to disable radeon and use the newer amdgpu drivers. Everything is incredibly smooth under Wayland in 4k@60Hz and I had no issues at all so far.
shmerl 9y ago
> Sadly the legacy of the Linux community talks like AMD doesn't work in Linux and NVIDIA is the only real choice. Not in my experience. AMD efforts are welcomed by Linux community, especially gamers. See trends here (AMD GPU usage is growing): https://www.gamingonlinux.com/users/statistics#trends https://www.gamingonlinux.com/users/statistics#trends

katastic 9y ago

>to make them the most Linux friendly GPU option. Intel works quite fine. I'm pretty sure it's just nVidia that's the problem.

iforgotpassword 9y ago
Agreed; but they were probably referring to big beefy GPUs, so you only have team green and team red.

Asooka 9y ago

The problem is AMD (and Intel) require a lot of moving pieces to come together to make a fully stable system, while nVidia is more of a complete packaged solution. For me, I tried AMD (neé ATI) once in 2003 and the experience was so bad, I just completely swore them off. I have literally never had nVidia's drivers crash and kill my X session, or hard-lock the kernel, which were frequent problems with both ATI's closed-source drivers and Intel's open-source drivers. I don't see myself ever buying anything other than nVidia ever again.

sammoth 9y ago
Why would you base that decision solely on your experience 14 years ago? The driver is completely different now.
jhasse 9y ago
> 2003 You had a problem with ATI's closed-source driver 14 years ago. AMD's open-source driver now is a COMPLETELY different story.
- distances 9y ago
  > You had a problem with ATI's closed-source driver 14 years ago. AMD's open-source driver now is a COMPLETELY different story. Indeed. In 2003 no-one would have based their expectations on what happened in 1989. 14 years is an eternity in this field.
- Asooka 9y ago
  Yes, and it was bad enough that I decided to never ever buy from that company again. For the record, I did have the displeasure of using an AMD GPU in 2010, because that's what my employer at the time purchased, and it was only slightly more stable. I am absolutely convinced that nobody except nVidia can produce stable, working video drivers. The last 14 years haven't produced a counter-example.
  - jhasse 9y ago
    You're personifying companies way too much.
  - baldfat 9y ago
    Also do you also refuse to use RPM based distros due to dependency hell? Also GOOD NEWS ATI is dead, it wasn't AMD that manufactured the Card or the Drivers! It was a company called ATI based in Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies AMD bought them 2006 and killed ATI brand 3 years later. Also I bet you only a handful of people actually still work on the technology.
  - Zardoz84 9y ago
    I had a bad experience with an ATI card many years ago with a Ubuntu box. And line you, I said that I would never buy an ATI GPU. Actually my computer have a RX580 and work like a dream (On windows and Linux)
bryanlarsen 9y ago
My experience in 2017 is the complete opposite. The nVidia binary driver is the only thing I experience that causes me significant pain, including system lockups. Unfortunately we use CUDA, but as soon as ROCm matures, I'm going to be strongly advocating a switch away from nVidia. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15877262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15877262
StudentStuff 9y ago
Huh? Intel drivers have been fine for at least the past decade, when I was much younger I remember toting around a laptop with an A4 APU running the libre drivers just fine too.
baldfat 9y ago
> 2003 Read the offical documentation on Linux with SUSE and NVIDIA. http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display_ia32_1.0-4363.html http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display_ia32_1.0-4363.htm... Linux in 2003 is a totally different beast today. Tell me you got your wifi working or NVIDIA with a working desktop out of the box. I would sit in the terminal and have to install proprietary drivers just to see Gnome or KDE. I would have to sit by the Ethernet port for a while till I got wifi working. Read this forum post I can post hundreds of these because I read them all trying to get my card to work. I had to edit my X11 configs by hand till around 2008??? https://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/showthread.php/157517-How-to-install-openGL-under-Linux-Debian https://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/showthread.php/1575...

badsectoracula 9y ago

While NVIDIA is far from the only choice and AMD has improved dramatically these days to the point where they are within NVIDIA's performance reach, NVIDIA still dominates the higher end side [1] and they do have by far the most complete and stable OpenGL implementation (with the Mesa front end on AMD you do not even get a compatibility profile - a major disaster IMO - whereas on the other hand NVIDIA not only gives you that but in some cases using it you can get a huge bang for your buck in terms of performance). [1] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=16way-gpu-aug17 https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=16way-gp...

vetinari 9y ago
I'm curious - what would you need OpenGL compatibility profile for?
- rnhmjoj 9y ago
  I have no idea why but there are video games (even fairly recent ones) that requires the compatibility profile. No Man's Sky and Dying Light for example.
- badsectoracula 9y ago
  Regardless of what i'd personally need it for, it is still something that NVIDIA's drivers provide and AMD/Mesa lack and thus a negative on Mesa's side (especially considering that NVIDIA not only provides all that extra stuff but they still manage to be faster than the implementations - like Mesa and Apple - that do not). Now as for what I would need the compatibility profile, it is very simple: i just find it more convenient to use so i have a ton of code that uses it. The original idea for the separation of profiles was that the core profile would make implementing OpenGL easier and make it faster but neither of those actually happened (as i said, NVIDIA despite implementing the entirety of OpenGL is still the fastest implementation) while i really disagree with the idea of pushing the complex bits towards the end users (of the API) in order to avoid the implementors doing it. It is better to have 1 developer on the driver/implementation side handle the complexity that 1000 users (of the API) are going to enjoy than have each one of those 1000 users make 1000 individual solutions to that complexity, thus multiplying the time spent on the complexity by 1000 (this of course applies to all tech that by itself is "simple" only because it pushes the hard bits to its clients - see Wayland as another example). Ok, so actually i have two reasons, one practical (i find it convenient) and one more ideological (pushing complexity upwards). Actually i have two ideological reasons, the second (and actually more important) is that i dislike backwards incompatible breakage in APIs and libraries (unless that API is meant for internal or utility use, of course, or is in beta/development stage). This is a much bigger issue though, so let's leave it at that :-P.

green7ea 9y ago

I couldn't agree more. I'm a full time Linux user and have recently switched to AMD because of their awesome open source support. My new system is the most responsive and stable Linux experience I've ever had. I just recently build a full AMD system (Ryzen 5, Radeon RX 560) and I couldn't be happier. I've had Intel systems that were fine but couldn't keep up with GPU performance. I've also had nvidia systems that were fine performance wise but the closed nvidia driver has been more and more problematic lately (crashes, VSync is off, etc.). Not only that but it's all free software. When freesync support lands I can't image ever using anything but AMD under Linux.

snuxoll 9y ago
NVidia has always been more of a pain under Linux for at least the past 5 years, even if AMD wasn't contributing much to the open source drivers code-wise at the time they published hardware specifications for their cards so the mesa and DRM developers could do a halfway decent job. My Radeon R9 290 worked quite well without installing fglrx, as did my Radeon HD 7850. I'm actually at the point where I need an upgrade for my work laptop, and I am going to seriously push for something that doesn't use NVidia graphics since they're such a pain to deal with under Linux (especially Optimus, holy crap).

rhaps0dy 9y ago

Semi-relatedly and unfortunately, AI research is locked-in to NVIDIA (on Linux) because all the big lienar algebra and autodifferentiation frameworks work only with CUDA.

lloeki 9y ago
This is totally not my field so it may very well be the stupidest question ever: is there technically anything that prevents implementing CUDA on top of non-NVIDIA hardware?
- FnuGk 9y ago
  CUDA is made by nvidia
  - baldfat 9y ago
    Not sure why you were down voted. CUDA is developed by NVIDIA. CUDA is a registered trademark by NVIDIA - https://trademarks.justia.com/850/30/cuda-85030071.html https://trademarks.justia.com/850/30/cuda-85030071.html Here is the CUDA webpage https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-zone https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-zone
    - iforgotpassword 9y ago
      Because it's a pointless answer that basically just repeats part of the question, providing absolutely no new information.
      - baldfat 9y ago
        Well I think it makes a short answer NVIDIA doesn't let their proprietary CUDA technology work on non-NVIDIA devices.
- orbifold 9y ago
  No there isn't, Google developed a CUDA frontend for clang/llvm which targets PTX (nvidias virtual machine instruction set), in principle someone could come along and implement a different backend for this frontend targeting for example AMDs gpu instruction architecture or something different. The other ingredient missing is a reimplementation of CUDAs runtime libraries.

dijit 9y ago

This does not mirror my experience. I have a machine with amdgpu drivers installed. I specifically installed ubuntu instead of arch or something more exotic because i knew there would be issues. And i was right. I can use the OpenCL now but I can't use x11 because the driver uses old ABIs. My experience with Nvidias binary blobs even on systems like freebsd has been stellar in comparison.

dijit 9y ago
I should add that I generally dont like nvidia either. Intel is the GPU of choice generally, but sometimes you need the compute.
ubercow13 9y ago
Why are you using the closed source driver?
majewsky 9y ago
> I specifically installed ubuntu instead of arch or something more exotic because i knew there would be issues. You should try Arch. I'm using AMDGPU with X11 on Arch since late 2015 (when full support for my card entered the mainline kernel) and I had exactly zero issues. Just installed the driver packages, rebooted and everything worked (xrandr, power mgmt, OpenGL, games, etc.). Maybe your issue is trying to use the proprietary blobs (aka AMDGPU-PRO). I never used these (and I don't know why I should).
Symmetry 9y ago
Compute is something of a problem for AMD GPUs right now. The open source driver is wonderfully stable and performant for gaming but to use it for OpenCL you really want to use the proprietary driver instead which is also pretty performant but sometimes has weird behaviors.
floatboth 9y ago
I'm using amdgpu on FreeBSD (-CURRENT, drm-next-kmod), with Vulkan (RADV) + Wayland, it's awesome :) Yeah, OpenCL is a problem, clover crashes, the new AMD OpenCL driver is not ported yet (I guess it depends on kernel 4.15? we have amdgpu from 4.12 for now)... I wish people started using Vulkan for compute instead of OpenCL!!

cleeus 9y ago

I bought an AMD card for my Linux desktop this year, because they have better open source drivers then nVidia :) Before that, I bought nVidia or Intel. It's a good feeling to run without that ugly nvidia-drivers blob.

ensignavenger 9y ago

I built a new system recently, Ryzen 7 with an AMD Vega 64... I've yet to get the Vega 64 to work right with Debian Testing (Or Ubuntu 17.10/16.04). I am hoping I have some time to fiddle with it and maybe get it working before Christmas :)

baldfat 9y ago
I have heard that Vega 64 has some serious thermal issues. My friend has one on Windows and it caused him so much trouble he sold it used (For a profit) and got a Vega 52.
foepys 9y ago
Vega cards will be supported in Linux 4.15 onwards with mesa drivers. Linux 4.12, 4.13, and 4.14 do support Vega cards but not for display output. You'll have to use AMD's proprietary drivers for now.
- ensignavenger 9y ago
  I plan to try the 4.15 rc. But then I don't know for what all I need on top of that. Phoronix has some articles on the topic, but they don't provide much specifics. I did try their proprietary drivers, too, but did not have any luck. Maybe I'll have time to tinker with it tomorrow. It would have been nice to have out of the box support :) I suppose they will get there eventually.
ensignavenger 9y ago
In case anyone else is wondering, I was able to get my Vega 64 working, just required building the latest 4.15 RC kernel :)

danieldk 9y ago

I fully agree. My workstation came with an NVIDIA Quadro and it had a lot of driver issues. The proprietary drivers did not work with Wayland and with the open source drivers the screen would regularly flicker, not come out of display sleep, etc. Based on the positive comments wrt. the amdgpu driver I bought an AMD FirePro W2100 (because its max TDP is 25W). And it's been excellent. Since GCN 1.0 and 1.1 are supported by both the radeon and amdgpu drivers, I use the kernel flags amdgpu.si_support=1 radeon.si_support=0 amdgpu.cik_support=1 radeon.ciksupport=0 to disable radeon and use the newer amdgpu drivers. Everything is incredibly smooth under Wayland in 4k@60Hz and I had no issues at all so far.

shmerl 9y ago

> Sadly the legacy of the Linux community talks like AMD doesn't work in Linux and NVIDIA is the only real choice. Not in my experience. AMD efforts are welcomed by Linux community, especially gamers. See trends here (AMD GPU usage is growing): https://www.gamingonlinux.com/users/statistics#trends https://www.gamingonlinux.com/users/statistics#trends