3 ms·

Care to elaborate? Nvidia used to be the only discrete GPU manufacturer that had Linux support worth mentioning. I know that AMD/ATi has made a lot of progress

by wtracy 8y ago

Care to elaborate? Nvidia used to be the only discrete GPU manufacturer that had Linux support worth mentioning. I know that AMD/ATi has made a lot of progress, but is Nvidia really the worst at this point?

gmueckl 8y ago
I have perfectly working nVidia binary drivers that allow me to subject OpenGL to novel and creative abuses without problems. The rate at which I discover driver bugs has gone done a lot. Mesa, in contrast, had floating point texture formats blocked because of suspected patent issues until a few weeks ago. These are ste mandated formats in the OpenGL standard so Mesa was never technically compatible. And these formats do matter a lot in practice.
deathanatos 8y ago
I just went through the process of getting NVIDIA drivers working on my brother's dual-boot Ubuntu. Here's the issues we hit: 1. You don't don't get drivers out of the box. The NVIDIA driver is non-free, so Ubuntu's (and other Linux distros') hands are tied here: they're not permitted to distribute it. Getting it is relatively easy (check a box, install a package), but you need to know that you need it, and then figure out how to get it. 2. (For laptops) You need to install optimus/primus/bumblebee, s.t. the system isn't using the integrated GPU. This is another package that you need to know you need, and install. Ubuntu here is particularly bad: it apparently installs the drivers in the wrong spot, so even with everything correctly installed, you have to find a config in /etc, edit it to what a couple of comment on a GitHub issue that you found after Googling the error indicate. (Other distros, in particular Arch, do not have this issue.) 3. (For laptops) You need to configure the game in Steam to take advantage of primusrun. Steam does not do this automatically.
- wtracy 8y ago
  Last time I checked, both AMD and Nvidia expect you to download manufacturer drivers for Windows. I'm willing to jump through similar hoops for Linux. (Incidentally, when someone complains about how hard it is to install Linux, that person has usually never tried installing Windows without using the OEM disc from the manufacturer. Take that away, and Windows becomes a lot harder.) Linux support for Optimus and friends is abysmal, I agree. When I say good things about Nvidia's Linux support, I am referring to their discrete desktop and workstation cards.
  - jenscow 8y ago
    Recently I tried to install Windows on some HP Elitebook, a few weeks back. It didn't have drivers for the graphics card, nor both network interfaces (and several other internal devices). How am I supposed to download the network drivers without a working NIC?? (same machine, like many others, have no troubles with Ubuntu, out-the-box) It was only so my wife (honest) could play The Sims 4. Fortunately, thanks to the hard work of the WINE developers, it runs flawlessly on Linux (small amount of trickery required for Origin).
    - Evidlo 8y ago
      USB tethering long enough to download drivers has been a reliable way for me to get around this problem.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
nybble41 8y ago
I believe nVidia is the only major GPU manufacturer left without full-featured open-source drivers. nVidia was once the best GPU manufacturer for Linux on PCs but they proved unable to make the leap from proprietary drivers to OEM-supported open source; Nouveau exists as a community effort but remains well behind the AMD/Intel equivalents. IMHO, assuming you get to choose your GPU, the only reason to mess around with nVidia's proprietary drivers at this point would be support for CUDA—there are still some apps which only support CUDA acceleration and not OpenCL, and AFAIK CUDA remains exclusive to nVidia hardware.
- wtracy 8y ago
  The thing to understand about Nvidia is that they use the same model as Apple: Produce really nice software, and use it to drive hardware sales. On the driver side, a lot of the features and performance advantages of Nvidia cards are rumored to be largely implemented in software. (Think of things like having a really good optimizing compiler for shaders.) Open sourcing that code would allow other brands to copy a lot of their techniques. On the application side, Nvidia produces a lot of developer tools (like CUDA) that are either tied to or heavily optimised for Nvidia hardware. All this means that Open Source is largely antithetical to the way they do business. OTOH, ATI Linux drivers went through a very rough patch when ATI decided that Open Source meant, "Hey, we can get a bunch of suckers to write drivers for us!" Everyone involved seems to have actually come out the other side stronger for the experience, and I'm very optimistic about their future. That said, my understanding is that you are committed to Linux, you still get a more robust OpenGL implementation (ATI used to be buggy as sin) and better shader performance with Nvidia hardware/software. The situation is changing rapidly, and I would love to know if the information at the start of this paragraph is out of date. Now that I've provided an infomercial for Nvidia: I'm willing to defend Nvidia's products, but I'm not really ready to defend Nvidia the company. Even if Nvidia's hardware beats the competition on all the benchmarks relevant to your use case, it's entirely reasonable to prefer choosing a company that is more willing to play nice with the greater community.
  - nybble41 8y ago
    > That said, my understanding is that you are committed to Linux, you still get a more robust OpenGL implementation (ATI used to be buggy as sin) and better shader performance with Nvidia hardware/software. That's probably true, if your use case requires the absolute best GPU performance. For me, though, the Intel and AMD open source drivers have gotten good enough that the marginal improvements possible with proprietary drivers simply aren't worth the hassle. At least with AMD you are free to choose between Mesa and Catalyst, and can be assured of a decent experience either way. If you opt for nVidia hardware you're effectively locked in to their proprietary driver if you want to use even half of your GPU's capabilities. It helps that Intel and AMD and all the non-PC Mesa drivers share common infrastructure, so improvements to one driver tend to enhance the entire ecosystem—except nVidia. As you noted, the situation is changing rapidly; I think it won't be much longer before nVidia's proprietary drivers forfeit whatever performance advantage they have left to the combined efforts of the open source community.

by wtracy 8y ago

gmueckl 8y ago

I have perfectly working nVidia binary drivers that allow me to subject OpenGL to novel and creative abuses without problems. The rate at which I discover driver bugs has gone done a lot. Mesa, in contrast, had floating point texture formats blocked because of suspected patent issues until a few weeks ago. These are ste mandated formats in the OpenGL standard so Mesa was never technically compatible. And these formats do matter a lot in practice.

deathanatos 8y ago

I just went through the process of getting NVIDIA drivers working on my brother's dual-boot Ubuntu. Here's the issues we hit: 1. You don't don't get drivers out of the box. The NVIDIA driver is non-free, so Ubuntu's (and other Linux distros') hands are tied here: they're not permitted to distribute it. Getting it is relatively easy (check a box, install a package), but you need to know that you need it, and then figure out how to get it. 2. (For laptops) You need to install optimus/primus/bumblebee, s.t. the system isn't using the integrated GPU. This is another package that you need to know you need, and install. Ubuntu here is particularly bad: it apparently installs the drivers in the wrong spot, so even with everything correctly installed, you have to find a config in /etc, edit it to what a couple of comment on a GitHub issue that you found after Googling the error indicate. (Other distros, in particular Arch, do not have this issue.) 3. (For laptops) You need to configure the game in Steam to take advantage of primusrun. Steam does not do this automatically.

wtracy 8y ago
Last time I checked, both AMD and Nvidia expect you to download manufacturer drivers for Windows. I'm willing to jump through similar hoops for Linux. (Incidentally, when someone complains about how hard it is to install Linux, that person has usually never tried installing Windows without using the OEM disc from the manufacturer. Take that away, and Windows becomes a lot harder.) Linux support for Optimus and friends is abysmal, I agree. When I say good things about Nvidia's Linux support, I am referring to their discrete desktop and workstation cards.
- jenscow 8y ago
  Recently I tried to install Windows on some HP Elitebook, a few weeks back. It didn't have drivers for the graphics card, nor both network interfaces (and several other internal devices). How am I supposed to download the network drivers without a working NIC?? (same machine, like many others, have no troubles with Ubuntu, out-the-box) It was only so my wife (honest) could play The Sims 4. Fortunately, thanks to the hard work of the WINE developers, it runs flawlessly on Linux (small amount of trickery required for Origin).
  - Evidlo 8y ago
    USB tethering long enough to download drivers has been a reliable way for me to get around this problem.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

nybble41 8y ago

I believe nVidia is the only major GPU manufacturer left without full-featured open-source drivers. nVidia was once the best GPU manufacturer for Linux on PCs but they proved unable to make the leap from proprietary drivers to OEM-supported open source; Nouveau exists as a community effort but remains well behind the AMD/Intel equivalents. IMHO, assuming you get to choose your GPU, the only reason to mess around with nVidia's proprietary drivers at this point would be support for CUDA—there are still some apps which only support CUDA acceleration and not OpenCL, and AFAIK CUDA remains exclusive to nVidia hardware.

wtracy 8y ago
The thing to understand about Nvidia is that they use the same model as Apple: Produce really nice software, and use it to drive hardware sales. On the driver side, a lot of the features and performance advantages of Nvidia cards are rumored to be largely implemented in software. (Think of things like having a really good optimizing compiler for shaders.) Open sourcing that code would allow other brands to copy a lot of their techniques. On the application side, Nvidia produces a lot of developer tools (like CUDA) that are either tied to or heavily optimised for Nvidia hardware. All this means that Open Source is largely antithetical to the way they do business. OTOH, ATI Linux drivers went through a very rough patch when ATI decided that Open Source meant, "Hey, we can get a bunch of suckers to write drivers for us!" Everyone involved seems to have actually come out the other side stronger for the experience, and I'm very optimistic about their future. That said, my understanding is that you are committed to Linux, you still get a more robust OpenGL implementation (ATI used to be buggy as sin) and better shader performance with Nvidia hardware/software. The situation is changing rapidly, and I would love to know if the information at the start of this paragraph is out of date. Now that I've provided an infomercial for Nvidia: I'm willing to defend Nvidia's products, but I'm not really ready to defend Nvidia the company. Even if Nvidia's hardware beats the competition on all the benchmarks relevant to your use case, it's entirely reasonable to prefer choosing a company that is more willing to play nice with the greater community.
- nybble41 8y ago
  > That said, my understanding is that you are committed to Linux, you still get a more robust OpenGL implementation (ATI used to be buggy as sin) and better shader performance with Nvidia hardware/software. That's probably true, if your use case requires the absolute best GPU performance. For me, though, the Intel and AMD open source drivers have gotten good enough that the marginal improvements possible with proprietary drivers simply aren't worth the hassle. At least with AMD you are free to choose between Mesa and Catalyst, and can be assured of a decent experience either way. If you opt for nVidia hardware you're effectively locked in to their proprietary driver if you want to use even half of your GPU's capabilities. It helps that Intel and AMD and all the non-PC Mesa drivers share common infrastructure, so improvements to one driver tend to enhance the entire ecosystem—except nVidia. As you noted, the situation is changing rapidly; I think it won't be much longer before nVidia's proprietary drivers forfeit whatever performance advantage they have left to the combined efforts of the open source community.