Has anyone tried the new ATi Linux driver, version 8.14.13?
I've had much success using the nVidia Linux driver because it just works. I've never had any luck using the old ATi linux drivers. Has anyone tested the newer driver? How was the install process? Painful or Painless? I'm debating on getting a new card, but am on the fence on whether to get an nVidia based card or an ATi based card. Any comments or insights would be greatly appreciated! Thanx... -Ubence
On Monday, 13-June-2005 15:23, Ubence Quevedo wrote:
I've had much success using the nVidia Linux driver because it just works. I've never had any luck using the old ATi linux drivers. Has anyone tested the newer driver? How was the install process? Painful or Painless? I'm debating on getting a new card, but am on the fence on whether to get an nVidia based card or an ATi based card. Any comments or insights would be greatly appreciated!
Tried it. Didn't work on my laptop (Radeon 9600, 128MB video RAM). Install was much better than previous releases, however. And the driver actually starts, and X loads. But acceleration doesn't work. Ended up reverting back to the Mesa driver. You might check out the Linux driver forum at www.rage3d.com http://www.rage3d.com/board/forumdisplay.php?f=92
Loading ATI drivers has always been painful .. if you are currently using an Nvidia card, don't switch to ATI unless you are using it under Windows as well, and even then I would be more apt to stick with Nvidia. I've recently gone throught the whole process to get out FireGL X1's working under SUSE 9.2, however I think I'm using the 8.10 driver. First off make sure GCC and kernel sources are installed. As well you will have to change to run level 3 to install the driver and get acceleration working. Also you will have to use the --force option in rpm to get the ATI driver to overwrite the Mesa GL. Use fglxinfo to see if you are using ATI's drivers or Mesa after running fglrxconfig and restarting X. Also use fgl_glxgears to measure FPS, plain glxgears gives some crazy FPS but is very incorrect. My FPS with an $800 ATI workstation card is ~600, which is trash. What FPS does your current Nvidia card give you? Cheers Todd sargon wrote:
On Monday, 13-June-2005 15:23, Ubence Quevedo wrote:
I've had much success using the nVidia Linux driver because it just works. I've never had any luck using the old ATi linux drivers. Has anyone tested the newer driver? How was the install process? Painful or Painless? I'm debating on getting a new card, but am on the fence on whether to get an nVidia based card or an ATi based card. Any comments or insights would be greatly appreciated!
Tried it. Didn't work on my laptop (Radeon 9600, 128MB video RAM).
Install was much better than previous releases, however. And the driver actually starts, and X loads. But acceleration doesn't work. Ended up reverting back to the Mesa driver.
You might check out the Linux driver forum at www.rage3d.com
-- Systems Administrator ---------------------------------- Soho VFX - Visual Effects Studio 99 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 303 Toronto, Ontario, M6K 3J8 (416) 516-7863 http://www.sohovfx.com ----------------------------------
Ubence Quevedo wrote:
I've had much success using the nVidia Linux driver because it just works. I've never had any luck using the old ATi linux drivers. Has anyone tested the newer driver? How was the install process? Painful or Painless? I'm debating on getting a new card, but am on the fence on whether to get an nVidia based card or an ATi based card. Any comments or insights would be greatly appreciated! Thanx... -Ubence
Go with the Nvidia, unless you're really into pain and massive annoyance. I imagine both have great lines of cards, but in terms of linux (and bsd) friendliness, nvidia's the only serious game in town (stupid easy SINGLE driver install for most of their models (by single I'm comparing it to that monstrosity of a web site that ATI has you hunt around to find just the right driver for your particular card), and great performance). ATIs on the other hand are an abhorrence in Linux. I should know, my Linux desktop at work (a Dell optiplex 280) has an ATI X300 on it. I did try their most recent driver (with the gui installer and all), and the best I've gotten with it now is 2D, 3D doesn't work. I did have 3D working at one point with the card, on SUSE I believe using the older fglrx drivers that were on the 9.3 dvd, but not now. Even when I've seen 3D working on it though (under linux), performance has been subpar. My old GeForce2 would've given better results I think. D'Arcy
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 06:44, D'Arcy MacIsaac wrote:
or an ATi based card. Any comments or insights would be greatly appreciated! Thanx... -Ubence
Go with the Nvidia, unless you're really into pain and massive annoyance. I imagine both have great lines of cards, but in terms of linux (and bsd) friendliness, nvidia's the only serious game in town (stupid easy SINGLE driver install for most of their models (by single I'm comparing it to that monstrosity of a web site that ATI has you hunt around to find just the right driver for your particular card), and great performance).
Gosh, that's strange. The ATI drivers were included with the distro. Didn't have to download them. And they installed without any problems.
ATIs on the other hand are an abhorrence in Linux. I should know, my Linux desktop at work (a Dell optiplex 280) has an ATI X300 on it. I did try their most recent driver (with the gui installer and all), and the best I've gotten with it now is 2D, 3D doesn't work. I did have 3D working at one point with the card, on SUSE I believe using the older fglrx drivers that were on the 9.3 dvd, but not now. Even when I've seen 3D working on it though (under linux), performance has been subpar. My old GeForce2 would've given better results I think.
I picked up the latest from SUSE. Same as the ATI site, installed and work flawlessly. BTW the card is a 9800pro on a dual AMD platform. AS for yours, I wouldn't even purchase a dell. Most that I've seen, and we have about 125 of them at work, are the worst excuse for a computer I've seen. Shoddy workmanship and cheap parts. If you can't get it to work, that's fine. But your general statement is just plain wrong. Mike -- Powered by SuSE 9.3 Kernel 2.6.11 KDE 3.4.0 Kmail 1.8 For Mondo/Mindi backup support go to http://www.mikenjane.net/~mike 4:12pm up 3 days 1:52, 4 users, load average: 2.22, 2.19, 2.17
Mike, The default install of Suse 9.2 (I don't know about 9.3) will recognize ATI cards but will not give any 3d performance whatsoever. I've done the install about 25 times now on several different types of machines. Across the board no 3d performance. ATI makes horrible linux drivers that give half the performance of the equivalent Windows ones. Their support and performance under OpenGL doesn't seem to be half of what it is for DirectX. I'm dissapointed by them daily. The radeon driver is installed by default, and while this is compatible with my cards, it is not the driver that offers the best performance (the fglrx driver is, which has to be downloaded from ATI's website and installed). Getting 3d to work is a cumbersome exercise, and should be quite easy, it isn't. I've been working with linux for over 10 years and it still took my two days to get 3d running. His general statement isn't wrong. Its correct, if you are using 3d or looking for a better driver, if you just use it for plain 2d then the radeon driver is fine, but lets not be apologists for ATI's shoddy drivers. With that said I'll be looking into the latest driver shortly, I'll report back with my findings. Cheers Todd -- Systems Administrator ---------------------------------- Soho VFX - Visual Effects Studio 99 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 303 Toronto, Ontario, M6K 3J8 (416) 516-7863 http://www.sohovfx.com ---------------------------------- mike wrote:
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 06:44, D'Arcy MacIsaac wrote:
or an ATi based card. Any comments or insights would be greatly appreciated! Thanx... -Ubence
Go with the Nvidia, unless you're really into pain and massive annoyance. I imagine both have great lines of cards, but in terms of linux (and bsd) friendliness, nvidia's the only serious game in town (stupid easy SINGLE driver install for most of their models (by single I'm comparing it to that monstrosity of a web site that ATI has you hunt around to find just the right driver for your particular card), and great performance).
Gosh, that's strange. The ATI drivers were included with the distro. Didn't have to download them. And they installed without any problems.
ATIs on the other hand are an abhorrence in Linux. I should know, my Linux desktop at work (a Dell optiplex 280) has an ATI X300 on it. I did try their most recent driver (with the gui installer and all), and the best I've gotten with it now is 2D, 3D doesn't work. I did have 3D working at one point with the card, on SUSE I believe using the older fglrx drivers that were on the 9.3 dvd, but not now. Even when I've seen 3D working on it though (under linux), performance has been subpar. My old GeForce2 would've given better results I think.
I picked up the latest from SUSE. Same as the ATI site, installed and work flawlessly. BTW the card is a 9800pro on a dual AMD platform. AS for yours, I wouldn't even purchase a dell. Most that I've seen, and we have about 125 of them at work, are the worst excuse for a computer I've seen. Shoddy workmanship and cheap parts.
If you can't get it to work, that's fine. But your general statement is just plain wrong.
Mike
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 11:14 -0400, M. Todd Smith wrote:
Mike,
The default install of Suse 9.2 (I don't know about 9.3) will recognize ATI cards but will not give any 3d performance whatsoever. It's the same as with the nVidia cards in that respect.
I've done the install about 25 times now on several different types of machines. Across the board no 3d performance.
ATI makes horrible linux drivers that give half the performance of the equivalent Windows ones. I don't have anything to compare linux vs windows performance of the ATi driver, but I'll tell you this: My cheap-o Radeon 9250 128mb (64bit) comes very close to my housemate's ASUS GeForce FX5700 128mb (128mbit) of almost three times the price. Gears give 1430 odd fps on the ATi, 1600 odd on the nVidia. In games the performance is much closer.
Their support and performance under OpenGL doesn't seem to be half of what it is for DirectX. I'm dissapointed by them daily.
The radeon driver is installed by default, and while this is compatible with my cards, it is not the driver that offers the best performance (the fglrx driver is, which has to be downloaded from ATI's website and installed). Getting 3d to work is a cumbersome exercise, and should be quite easy, it isn't. I've been working with linux for over 10 years and it still took my two days to get 3d running. Have a look at the drivers and README in ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/supplementary/X/ATI/suse93/i386/fglrx/8.14.13/
It's really not hard if you follow the instructions. The only thing that's a little unclear is the Sax part of it. Don't select "enable 3d" - don't bother with that, it doesn't make a difference. SUSE 9.3 comes with a fglrx driver, which is suspect is just a renamed radeon driver. It doesn't give 3d. You have to delete its source in /usr/src/kernel-modules and compile the one that comes with the ati driver. Make sure you're using the right version of the module! I think the included fglrx driver is just to make it easier for them to setup sax and every thing to make it easier for the user to set up the driver. Just drop the correct fglrx driver in and go. That's pretty much all I had to do. -- Kind Regards Hans du Plooy SagacIT (Pty) Ltd hansdp at sagacit dot com
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 17:14, M. Todd Smith wrote:
Mike,
The default install of Suse 9.2 (I don't know about 9.3) will recognize ATI cards but will not give any 3d performance whatsoever.
And nVidia does? If so, why do folks always talk about downloading the nvidia drivers via yast.
I've done the install about 25 times now on several different types of machines. Across the board no 3d performance.
ATI makes horrible linux drivers that give half the performance of the equivalent Windows ones. Their support and performance under OpenGL doesn't seem to be half of what it is for DirectX. I'm dissapointed by them daily.
The latest one seems to be getting there. I'm not saying it's the best, but I don't equate things with Windows. I don't have windows. It's not an option. The one computer in the house that does run windows still has a 16meg 3dfx card in it. ;-) The wife doesn't play games..
The radeon driver is installed by default, and while this is compatible with my cards, it is not the driver that offers the best performance (the fglrx driver is, which has to be downloaded from ATI's website and installed). Getting 3d to work is a cumbersome exercise, and should be quite easy, it isn't. I've been working with linux for over 10 years and it still took my two days to get 3d running.
Yes, the radeon driver is installed by default. So is the nv driver if that's the card you have. You still have to download the proprietary driver. It's just a bit harder with ATI as it isn't supported in Yast yet. But it's there on the suse ftp site, and takes about 5 minutes here to download and install. Then I can at least play tuxracer, and most of the openGL screensavers work. Other than that this is a work computer. Mike -- Powered by SuSE 9.3 Kernel 2.6.11 KDE 3.4.0 Kmail 1.8 For Mondo/Mindi backup support go to http://www.mikenjane.net/~mike 6:44pm up 3 days 4:24, 4 users, load average: 2.42, 2.56, 2.70
On Monday 13 June 2005 21:23, Ubence Quevedo wrote:
I've had much success using the nVidia Linux driver because it just works. I've never had any luck using the old ATi linux drivers. Has anyone tested the newer driver?
Works well here (Fujitsu Siemens Amilo A 1630 laptops, SuSE 9.2 x86_64, ATi Mobility Radeon 9700).
How was the install process? Painful or Painless?
Can't really remember. Not particularly painful, I think. Might have been a bit fiddly, but nothing hugely difficult to get round.
I'm debating on getting a new card, but am on the fence on whether to get an nVidia based card or an ATi based card.
Both work here (x86_64 laptops, ATi as above or NVIDIA GeForce FX Go 5700). Most people seem to find NVIDIA installs more easily, and gives higher performance, but I found the installation process had about the same level of difficulty for both. I haven't benchmarked either against the Windows driver for the same card, so can't comment on performance. -- Bill
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 13:23 -0700, Ubence Quevedo wrote: > I've had much success using the nVidia Linux driver > because it just works. I've never had any luck using > the old ATi linux drivers. Has anyone tested the > newer driver? How was the install process? Painful > or Painless? Painless, completely: 1. Download the rpms. Install the fglrx rpm 2. delete the /usr/src/kernel-modules/fglrx directory 3. install the km_fglrx rpm 4. go into /usr/src/linux, do make cloneconfig and make prepare-all 5. cd into /usr/src/kernel-modules/fglrx and run make as discribed in the readme on SUSE's ftp site. 6. run sax2, don't bother with enabling 3d, it works in any case. Yeah, the old ones were a bitch, but the current ones are easy -- Kind Regards Hans du Plooy SagacIT (Pty) Ltd hansdp at sagacit dot com
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 10:38 am, Hans du Plooy wrote:
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 13:23 -0700, Ubence Quevedo wrote:
I've had much success using the nVidia Linux driver because it just works. I've never had any luck using the old ATi linux drivers. Has anyone tested the newer driver? How was the install process? Painful or Painless?
Painless, completely: 1. Download the rpms. Install the fglrx rpm
What's the location of the rpm's? Thanks
2. delete the /usr/src/kernel-modules/fglrx directory 3. install the km_fglrx rpm 4. go into /usr/src/linux, do make cloneconfig and make prepare-all 5. cd into /usr/src/kernel-modules/fglrx and run make as discribed in the readme on SUSE's ftp site. 6. run sax2, don't bother with enabling 3d, it works in any case.
Yeah, the old ones were a bitch, but the current ones are easy
-- Kind Regards Hans du Plooy SagacIT (Pty) Ltd hansdp at sagacit dot com
Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 10:38 am, Hans du Plooy wrote:
Painless, completely: 1. Download the rpms. Install the fglrx rpm
What's the location of the rpm's? Thanks
supplementary/X/ATI/<suse _version>/<arch>/fglrx/8.14.13 -- Joe Morris New Tribes Mission Email Address: Joe_Morris@ntm.org Registered Linux user 231871
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 10:47 -0400, Bruce Marshall wrote:
What's the location of the rpm's? Thanks
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/supplementary/X/ATI/suse93/i386/fglrx/ -- Kind Regards Hans du Plooy SagacIT (Pty) Ltd hansdp at sagacit dot com
Ubence Quevedo wrote:
I've had much success using the nVidia Linux driver because it just works. I've never had any luck using the old ATi linux drivers. Has anyone tested the newer driver? How was the install process? Painful or Painless? I'm debating on getting a new card, but am on the fence on whether to get an nVidia based card or an ATi based card. Any comments or insights would be greatly appreciated! Thanx... -Ubence
Works fine here on 9.2, installing in exactly the same way as previous drivers. I dispensed with the final sax2 farrago and used the old XF86Config from the previous driver - all works great. But ... in order to get 3D without lockups every few minutes, I have to hack the kernel in order to disable fastwrites completely and then recompile it and the modules, so it's all a bit complicated and very far from "install and go". Although my ATI Radeon is a terrific card under Windows, I've always found Nvidia easier for Linux and the drivers seem faster too (comparatively, depending on your card). I understand that ATI are now making a decent push at Linux, but until we get to click and install for graphics drivers a la Windows, there will still be a ways to go as they say. :) Fish
participants (10)
-
Bruce Marshall -
D'Arcy MacIsaac -
Hans du Plooy -
Joe Morris (NTM) -
M. Todd Smith -
Mark Crean -
mike -
sargon -
Ubence Quevedo -
William Gallafent