3 ms·

Getting consistent quality out of Linux drivers is usually much easier than Windows ones exactly because they're not supplied by a random hardware maker but are

Getting consistent quality out of Linux drivers is usually much easier than Windows ones exactly because they're not supplied by a random hardware maker but are almost all upstream in the kernel. GPU drivers used to be a nightmare for this exact reason and are now finally all becoming properly upstream. Meanwhile the horror stories about Windows GPU drivers are all too common. Having to "clean up" old drivers. Having to stay on older versions because the new ones have a relevant broken feature, etc.

zamnos 3y ago
Let's be real, the two contenders for GPU performance (which, gamers appreciate) are Nvidia, which is not in the kernel, and AMD, which has an in-kernel driver, plus their own proprietary driver, same as Nvidia. TF2 is old enough that its runnable even on old Intel hardware, but let's not pretend that "almost all [drivers are] upstream in the kernel", so long as Nvidia and AMD both have proprietary, out-of-kernel-tree drivers, which mean that the "windows GPU horror stories" are also Linux GPU driver horror stories. Having to "clean up" old drivers. Having to stay on older versions because the new ones have a relevant broken feature, or the best: staying on an older version because the newer one doesn't support your hardware. I've spent way too long on Nvidia's legacy unix driver page[1], but only Nvidia cards have Cuda support, or the performance, so I'm stuck there. [1] https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/drivers/unix/ https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/drivers/unix/
- nemetroid 3y ago
  The proprietary AMD driver (AMDGPU-PRO) is only needed (or even an improvement over the open source version) in a few niche use cases. The majority of users are better off using the open source driver. > These days our packaged drivers are mostly intended for: > - customers using slower moving enterprise/LTS distros which do not automatically pick up the latest graphics drivers - we offer them both open source and proprietary/workstation options > - customers using workstation apps who need the extra performance/certification from a workstation-oriented driver (although Marek has done a lot of great work over the last year to improve Mesa performance on workstation apps) > The third target audience is customers looking for ready-to-go OpenCL, either for use with the packaged open/closed drivers or with the upstream-based stack in a recent distro. https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/linux-graphics-x-org-drivers/open-source-amd-linux/1316628-radeon-software-for-linux-22-10-driver-being-prepared-for-release#post1316713 https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/linux-graphics-x-org-d...
- pedrocr 3y ago
  GPU drivers are notorious for being out of tree and even there most GPU drivers over the years have been upstream. Even if you limit to just GPUs AMD are not the same as Nvidia. The in-kernel AMD driver is the primary one these days and even Nvidia has finally relented and is finally helping move at least the kernel driver upstream. That Nvidia's closed-source driver has been a mess for all these years is just a further example of how the Linux model is much superior to the Windows one.

zamnos 3y ago

Let's be real, the two contenders for GPU performance (which, gamers appreciate) are Nvidia, which is not in the kernel, and AMD, which has an in-kernel driver, plus their own proprietary driver, same as Nvidia. TF2 is old enough that its runnable even on old Intel hardware, but let's not pretend that "almost all [drivers are] upstream in the kernel", so long as Nvidia and AMD both have proprietary, out-of-kernel-tree drivers, which mean that the "windows GPU horror stories" are also Linux GPU driver horror stories. Having to "clean up" old drivers. Having to stay on older versions because the new ones have a relevant broken feature, or the best: staying on an older version because the newer one doesn't support your hardware. I've spent way too long on Nvidia's legacy unix driver page[1], but only Nvidia cards have Cuda support, or the performance, so I'm stuck there. [1] https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/drivers/unix/ https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/drivers/unix/

nemetroid 3y ago
The proprietary AMD driver (AMDGPU-PRO) is only needed (or even an improvement over the open source version) in a few niche use cases. The majority of users are better off using the open source driver. > These days our packaged drivers are mostly intended for: > - customers using slower moving enterprise/LTS distros which do not automatically pick up the latest graphics drivers - we offer them both open source and proprietary/workstation options > - customers using workstation apps who need the extra performance/certification from a workstation-oriented driver (although Marek has done a lot of great work over the last year to improve Mesa performance on workstation apps) > The third target audience is customers looking for ready-to-go OpenCL, either for use with the packaged open/closed drivers or with the upstream-based stack in a recent distro. https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/linux-graphics-x-org-drivers/open-source-amd-linux/1316628-radeon-software-for-linux-22-10-driver-being-prepared-for-release#post1316713 https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/linux-graphics-x-org-d...
pedrocr 3y ago
GPU drivers are notorious for being out of tree and even there most GPU drivers over the years have been upstream. Even if you limit to just GPUs AMD are not the same as Nvidia. The in-kernel AMD driver is the primary one these days and even Nvidia has finally relented and is finally helping move at least the kernel driver upstream. That Nvidia's closed-source driver has been a mess for all these years is just a further example of how the Linux model is much superior to the Windows one.