| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2002 9:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Xor wrote: | well, my point is, that nVidia produces BS-drivers.... memory leaking and unstable.... but fast - admitted.
the new ATIs 9x00 do outperform any GForce... and ATI has as far as I know better support for the community.... (better ... not perfect... like matrox 
to make it clear... I would sacrifice those 5% performence when I have the possibility to get a  - ATI |
If I'm not mistaken, support for Rage 128 cards is awful.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
delta407
Bodhisattva
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 2876
Location: Chicago, IL
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2002 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
FYI: I got a PNY GeForce4 Ti 4400, which is a beast of a card. It's about three times heavier than my GeForce DDR, about two inches longer (I had to re-arrange cables to make it fit), and the card is maroon instead of the standard PCB green. The heatsink/fan combo looks really cool, the fullscreen AA works great, and I've had no stability problems with SMP.
Oh, and the box says it requires a 350-watt power supply. (See? Beast!) 
_________________
I don't believe in witty sigs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2002 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| delta407 wrote: | | Oh, and the box says it requires a 350-watt power supply. (See? Beast!) |
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2002 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anyone familiar with the ASUS V8420 Ti4200 Deluxe? I'm intrigued by the introduction of this review. | Quote: | | The V8420 is a Ti4200 with a serious identity crisis. It looks like a Ti4400and it performs like one, but it costs less and comes with a ton of features the Ti4400 doesn't come with...oh yeah, it's a budget card too. |
later in the article: | Quote: | | Ti4200 Deluxe as it's the sure winner in the sub-$200 category for the enthusiast. |
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swishy
Guru
Joined: 06 Jun 2002
Posts: 491
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2002 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kanuslupus wrote: | | delta407 wrote: | | Oh, and the box says it requires a 350-watt power supply. (See? Beast!) |
|
Rekon wonder if the lights dim when he fires the box up , especially with dual processors lol
_________________
Theres no substitute for C.I. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
syadnom
Guru
Joined: 09 May 2002
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2002 10:59 pm Post subject: at the moment: |
|
|
| nvidia would be the best cards to get because of good driver support, but as of jan1, ati has "promised" to fully support linux for all of its graphics cards, if they can get the drivers right |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2002 12:16 am Post subject: Re: at the moment: |
|
|
| syadnom wrote: | | nvidia would be the best cards to get because of good driver support, but as of jan1, ati has "promised" to fully support linux for all of its graphics cards, if they can get the drivers right |
Anyone know what their track record has been since Jan 1st? I'm assuming this is on new cards and not older ones.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
syadnom
Guru
Joined: 09 May 2002
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2002 7:50 pm Post subject: ::: |
|
|
that is jan1 2003....
fully support of all ati chips based on the 8500 or more rescent, including the 9000, 9700, and future..
they already have functional 9700 drivers, as they were showing a realtime rendering demo with blender on a radeon 9700 under linux. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2002 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
:rubs hands together:
Looks like they'll be out for a little while to get some bug fixes before I buy a dual Opteron system. Hopefully ATI support for linux will be even better than nvidia.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
syadnom
Guru
Joined: 09 May 2002
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2002 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| im hoping so kanuslupus. i my prefer ATi to NVidia. i have never been a fan of NVidia chips, and i was SOOO dissapointed when NVidia bought 3dfx, i miss my voodoo5, and its about time for a VooDoo7(which would be absolutely incredible, and i can say that because its complete vaporware so i can pump up the specs just like the REAL 3d chip companies do ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jean-michel
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 30 May 2002
Posts: 142
Location: Somewhere East of the Atlantic
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2002 5:55 pm Post subject: Nvidia is pretty good, though I am considering an ATI also |
|
|
| Quote: |
Has anyone tried dualhead with either ATI or NVIDIA card? How's Xinerama working and how about GLX support and video overlays?
|
First, I am considering an ATI 9700 if I can determine whether or not their drivers (or the newly released XFree 4.2.1 server) can support DVI output at 1920x1200 resolution (the native resolution for my wicked HDTV/LCD monitor at home). I have not delved into that deeply yet, but as things stand now I was unable to get my ATI 8500 to do more than 1280x1024 via the DVI port using the xfree drivers. I am currently using an Nvidia G4 ti4600 with dual DVI out at home, with the current nvidia drivers, which do drive a single monitor very nicely at the aforementioned, obscene resolution.
I use and have deployed nvidia cards at work in the past, and dual head is very easy to get going (no xinerama required if the card is dual-headed, and thus no need to give up glx acceleration). That having been said, xinerama works just fine with the current nvidia drivers (1.0.3123), indeed it works great even in conjunction with nvidia's dual head support, at least with the quad-head nVidia Quadro4/400NVS I'm using (it appears as two dual headed cards on the pci bus).
Relevant XF86Config details follow (the quad head config uses xinerama to link two screens, each of which is dual headed and drives 2 monitors. For one dual-headed setup just drop the xinerama config and use the dual headed nvidia stuff within the 'screen' definition)
| Code: |
# **********************************************************************
# Graphics device section
# **********************************************************************
Section "Device"
Identifier "nvidia-card-1"
VendorName "Unknown"
BoardName "Unknown"
Driver "nvidia"
BusID "PCI:3:0:0"
# Clock lines
# Uncomment following option if you see a big white block
# instead of the cursor!
# Option "sw_cursor"
Option "DPMS"
EndSection
Section "Device"
Identifier "nvidia-card-2"
VendorName "Unknown"
BoardName "Unknown"
Driver "nvidia"
BusID "PCI:3:4:0"
# Clock lines
# Uncomment following option if you see a big white block
# instead of the cursor!
# Option "sw_cursor"
Option "DPMS"
EndSection
# **********************************************************************
# Screen sections
# **********************************************************************
Section "Screen"
Identifier "screen1"
Device "nvidia-card-1"
Monitor "IBM T750 LCD"
DefaultColorDepth 24
Option "IgnoreEDID" "1"
Subsection "Display"
Depth 8
Modes "1280x1024" "1152x864" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
ViewPort 0 0
EndSubsection
Subsection "Display"
Depth 16
Modes "1280x1024" "1152x864" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
ViewPort 0 0
EndSubsection
Subsection "Display"
Depth 24
Modes "1280x1024" "1152x864" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
ViewPort 0 0
EndSubsection
Subsection "Display"
Depth 32
Modes "1280x1024" "1152x864" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
ViewPort 0 0
EndSubsection
Option "TwinView"
Option "ConnectedMonitor" "dfp,dfp"
Option "SecondMonitorHorizSync" "30-64"
Option "SecondMonitorVertRefresh" "56-75"
Option "TwinViewOrientation" "LeftOf"
Option "MetaModes" "1280x1024, 1280x1024"
EndSection
Section "Screen"
Identifier "screen2"
Device "nvidia-card-2"
Monitor "IBM T750 LCD"
DefaultColorDepth 24
Option "IgnoreEDID" "1"
Subsection "Display"
Depth 8
Modes "1280x1024" "1152x864" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
ViewPort 0 0
EndSubsection
Subsection "Display"
Depth 16
Modes "1280x1024" "1152x864" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
ViewPort 0 0
EndSubsection
Subsection "Display"
Depth 24
Modes "1280x1024" "1152x864" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
ViewPort 0 0
EndSubsection
Subsection "Display"
Depth 32
Modes "1280x1024" "1152x864" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
ViewPort 0 0
EndSubsection
Option "TwinView"
Option "ConnectedMonitor" "dfp,dfp"
Option "SecondMonitorHorizSync" "30-64"
Option "SecondMonitorVertRefresh" "56-75"
Option "TwinViewOrientation" "RightOf"
Option "MetaModes" "1280x1024, 1280x1024"
EndSection
Section "ServerLayout"
Identifier "QuadHead"
Screen "screen1"
Screen "screen2" RightOf "screen1"
Screen "screen2"
Option "Xinerama"
InputDevice "Mouse1" "CorePointer"
InputDevice "Keyboard1" "CoreKeyboard"
EndSection
|
I've yet to attempt dual headed support with an ATI card, having been unable to find a dual DVI ati card to my liking that doesn't cost $990, but have read online that a number of them do work (though how well I cannot personally say).
Stability: All my systems are dual processor (dual PII/450s, dual PIII/500s-PIII/1GHzs, dual Athlons). The quad headed card has been rock solid (somewhat surprisingly), while some of the cheaper nvidia cards, especially the older geforce mx cards, have had their share of stability problems in the past. Celestia seems to be able to crash just about any nvidia card (untested on the quad since it is running Gentoo 1.4 and celestia doesn't compile with gcc 3.2 and/or the current opengl stuff). The ti4600 has been unstable on Gentoo 1.2 and 1.3 systems running XFS, but so far appears to be pretty stable on a Gentoo 1.4 system on an ext3 filesystem (though, as I said, I haven't been able to compile celestia in order to do the 'Celestia crash test' yet).
_________________
The Struggle for the Future of Human Evolution Begins: Autonomy the SciFi Series! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jean-michel
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 30 May 2002
Posts: 142
Location: Somewhere East of the Atlantic
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2002 5:59 pm Post subject: xv overlays work very well with nvidia, modulo xine |
|
|
I forgot to add that I use mplayer, kino, cinelerra, and other software that routinely uses xv video overlays all the time. All of them work very nicely with all of the nvidia cards I've mentioned, including the quad-headed Quadro4/400NVS. The only minor bug seems to be xine's use of xv, which somehow locks xv into a black-and-white mode that only a restart of the x server will clear up (even in other software that otherwise has no trouble using full 24-bit color). My solution was to unmerge xine and stick with mplayer. 
_________________
The Struggle for the Future of Human Evolution Begins: Autonomy the SciFi Series! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aanund
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 29 Aug 2002
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2002 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here is a small generic comparison chart for different gfx cards:
| Code: |
Drivers | 3D | 2D | Manufacturer
---------+------+------+-----------------
1 3 1 Matrox
2 1 3 Nvidia
3 2 2 Ati
|
Now, what does this mean? If you want to desktop applications, you cannot go much wrong with a matrox card, since matrox has CRYSTAL 2D. Also, Matrox has support for 3 screens on the parhelia ( supposedly nice if you need 3 screens .
If you want 3D all day, go for Nvidia, who, _at_the_moment_ outperforms ati, at least if you compare performance to price ( yes yes, i know about 9700, but since those are not readily available, they do not count ). And Nvidia cards generally stink at 2D, being blurry and unfocused.
If you want both, go Ati, Ati has 'almost' as good 2d as matrox, and 'almost' as good 3d as nvidia ( specially with the 9700 ), but getting the cards to perform in linux is something else altogether.
Just my thoughts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
west
n00b
Joined: 09 May 2002
Posts: 28
Location: Dinamarca
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2002 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aanund wrote: | | And Nvidia cards generally stink at 2D, being blurry and unfocused. |
So true ... My new R8500 blew me away the first time i powered my machine on, i came from a GF2mx ... phew ...
I'm definetly done with Navida after that. Geforce cards almost makes my eyes hurt now  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sheepdog
Guru
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 369
Location: Edison Enterprises Inc., Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:04 pm Post subject: Re: Nvidia is pretty good, though I am considering an ATI al |
|
|
| jean-michel wrote: | I have not delved into that deeply yet, but as things stand now I was unable to get my ATI 8500 to do more than 1280x1024 via the DVI port using the xfree drivers.
|
I have a dual-head ATI Radeon 8500 and I would love to know how you got output on the DVI port. I really want to use this card with dual monitors. Any clues you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Kernel & Hardware
