Need Video Card Recommendation
I've been having problems with my video recently to the point that when I boot the machine the screen stays blank (no bios messages, nada). I'm suspecting that my 4 year old Radeon VE is playing out. It could be some other problem, but I'm going to try replacing the video card just to see if that fixes the problem. From years of reading on this list, I get the impression that Radeon (ATI) is not looked upon as being of the same quality as NVIDIA. Maybe I'm wrong. And maybe there's some other brand that's considered even better. I'd like to get some recommendations from the list on what brand to buy. I'm running on a desktop machine so I need a small form factor card, which I'm sure most companies make. All recommendations greatly appreciated. Greg Wallace
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 02:31, Greg Wallace wrote:
reading on this list, I get the impression that Radeon (ATI) is not looked upon as being of the same quality as NVIDIA.
i just got a new machine to replace me 3-year-old box which died. The older one had an add-on NVidia. i forget which chipset, but definitely not the highest-end. My replacement box has an on-board Radeon Xpress 200G... i'm not impressed with it at all. The problems include: a) For inexplicable reasons, the fonts are all really small in X. i've had to reconfigure my KDE fonts to larger than normal sizes, which means they're HUGE when i log in remotely from one of the other machines (which use different X drivers). Some apps, like Google Earth don't allow changing the font sizes, and the text in the menus, etc., is literally too small to read. Some screens, like the KDM login, still have annoyingly small fonts. 10-point is almost too small to read under this driver (the "official" driver from ati.com). b) It flickers while playing video. Not *horribly*, but noticeably. My NVidia, though it was a few years older, didn't do this. c) Sax crashes under this chipset when i start it and click the "change configuration" button. i had to let the ATI driver installer edit the xorg.conf file (this is a step in the install process) and then hack it a bit by hand. Under NVidia, i never had any problems when using the default driver or the accelerated one from NVidia, except that i didn't have hardware acceleration using the free driver (but i don't need it for what i do). Aside from when playing 3D-centric games, i didn't notice any difference between those two drivers, and eventually dropped the accelerated driver for the default driver just so i wouldn't spend so much time playing games. -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
On Mon October 16 2006 18:10, stephan beal wrote:
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 02:31, Greg Wallace wrote:
reading on this list, I get the impression that Radeon (ATI) is not looked upon as being of the same quality as NVIDIA.
i just got a new machine to replace me 3-year-old box which died. The older one had an add-on NVidia. i forget which chipset, but definitely not the highest-end. My replacement box has an on-board Radeon Xpress 200G... i'm not impressed with it at all. The problems include:
a) For inexplicable reasons, the fonts are all really small in X. i've had to reconfigure my KDE fonts to larger than normal sizes, which means they're HUGE when i log in remotely from one of the other machines (which use different X drivers). Some apps, like Google Earth don't allow changing the font sizes, and the text in the menus, etc., is literally too small to read. Some screens, like the KDM login, still have annoyingly small fonts. 10-point is almost too small to read under this driver (the "official" driver from ati.com).
b) It flickers while playing video. Not *horribly*, but noticeably. My NVidia, though it was a few years older, didn't do this.
c) Sax crashes under this chipset when i start it and click the "change configuration" button. i had to let the ATI driver installer edit the xorg.conf file (this is a step in the install process) and then hack it a bit by hand.
Under NVidia, i never had any problems when using the default driver or the accelerated one from NVidia, except that i didn't have hardware acceleration using the free driver (but i don't need it for what i do). Aside from when playing 3D-centric games, i didn't notice any difference between those two drivers, and eventually dropped the accelerated driver for the default driver just so i wouldn't spend so much time playing games.
I just installed a new card with the NVidia FX5200 chip set on SUSE 10.0 no trouble and the price was good, I bought one locally for $52. Used YAST to install NVidia drivers and after last kernel update I did not have to reinstall the drives. Novell list all the compatibe card hardware at: http://cdb.suse.de/index.php?LANG=en_UK Hope this helps. -- Russ
2 recommendations for Nvidia -----Original Message----- From: Russbucket [mailto:russbucket@nwi.net] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 10:03 PM To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] Need Video Card Recommendation On Mon October 16 2006 18:10, stephan beal wrote:
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 02:31, Greg Wallace wrote:
reading on this list, I get the impression that Radeon (ATI) is not looked upon as being of the same quality as NVIDIA.
i just got a new machine to replace me 3-year-old box which died. The older one had an add-on NVidia. i forget which chipset, but definitely not the highest-end. My replacement box has an on-board Radeon Xpress 200G... i'm not impressed with it at all. The problems include:
a) For inexplicable reasons, the fonts are all really small in X. i've had to reconfigure my KDE fonts to larger than normal sizes, which means they're HUGE when i log in remotely from one of the other machines (which use different X drivers). Some apps, like Google Earth don't allow changing the font sizes, and the text in the menus, etc., is literally too small to read. Some screens, like the KDM login, still have annoyingly small fonts. 10-point is almost too small to read under this driver (the "official" driver from ati.com).
b) It flickers while playing video. Not *horribly*, but noticeably. My NVidia, though it was a few years older, didn't do this.
c) Sax crashes under this chipset when i start it and click the "change configuration" button. i had to let the ATI driver installer edit the xorg.conf file (this is a step in the install process) and then hack it a bit by hand.
Under NVidia, i never had any problems when using the default driver or the accelerated one from NVidia, except that i didn't have hardware acceleration using the free driver (but i don't need it for what i do). Aside from when playing 3D-centric games, i didn't notice any difference between those two drivers, and eventually dropped the accelerated driver for the default driver just so i wouldn't spend so much time playing games.
I just installed a new card with the NVidia FX5200 chip set on SUSE 10.0 no trouble and the price was good, I bought one locally for $52. Used YAST to install NVidia drivers and after last kernel update I did not have to reinstall the drives. Novell list all the compatibe card hardware at: http://cdb.suse.de/index.php?LANG=en_UK Hope this helps. -- Russ -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On 06/10/17 03:10 (GMT+0200) stephan beal apparently typed:
a) For inexplicable reasons, the fonts are all really small in X. i've had to reconfigure my KDE fonts to larger than normal sizes, which means they're HUGE when i log in remotely from one of the other machines (which use different X drivers). Some apps, like Google Earth don't allow changing the font sizes, and the text in the menus, etc., is literally too small to read. Some screens, like the KDM login, still have annoyingly small fonts. 10-point is almost too small to read under this driver (the "official" driver from ati.com).
You don't have a properly configured DPI setting. Desktop font settings in X are in points. An improper DPI setting means point sizes are wrong, typically much too small, as the fallback DPI setting is 75. Usually the best fix is a DisplaySize setting in xorg.conf. Read http://www.mozilla.org/unix/dpi.html to find out about DPI problems and solutions. Don't be concerned that it's targeted to Mozilla users. -- "The Lord is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts in him, and I am helped." Psalm 28:7 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 14:05, Felix Miata wrote:
On 06/10/17 03:10 (GMT+0200) stephan beal apparently typed:
a) For inexplicable reasons, the fonts are all really small in X. i've had to reconfigure my KDE fonts to larger than normal sizes, which means they're HUGE when i log in remotely from one of the ... Usually the best fix is a DisplaySize setting in xorg.conf. Read http://www.mozilla.org/unix/dpi.html to find out about DPI problems and solutions. Don't be concerned that it's targeted to Mozilla users. --
Thanks, Felix. i'll give that a try. -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 14:05, Felix Miata wrote:
You don't have a properly configured DPI setting. Desktop font settings in X are in points. An improper DPI setting means point sizes are wrong, typically much too small, as the fallback DPI setting is 75.
Usually the best fix is a DisplaySize setting in xorg.conf. Read http://www.mozilla.org/unix/dpi.html to find out about DPI problems and solutions. Don't be concerned that it's targeted to Mozilla users. -- "The Lord is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts in him, and I am helped." Psalm 28:7 NIV
Hi again, Felix! i'm following the information from the link you sent, but one thing isn't clear: when calculating my dots/inch, do i calculate based on the diagonal length or the horizontal/vertical length... or does it make a difference? Here's what i've done so far: stephan@owl:~> xdpyinfo | grep dimensions dimensions: 1600x1200 pixels (542x406 millimeters) stephan@owl:~> xdpyinfo | grep resolution resolution: 75x75 dots per inch stephan@owl:~> units 2438 units, 71 prefixes, 32 nonlinear units You have: mm You want: in * 0.039370079 / 25.4 stephan@owl:~> bc -l 542 / 25.4 <-- 542=mm wide, 25.4 = mm/inch conversion factor 21.33858267716535433070 <-- 21.3" monitor, which is correct 1600*1600 + 1200*1200 <--- pythagorean theorum: diagonal distance 4000000 sqrt(4000000) 2000.00000000000000000000 <--- diagonal distance in pixels (dots?) 2000 / 21.338582 <--- 21.... == monitor size, in inches 93.72694024373315902621 <--- approximate DPI If i understand that correctly, i need to adjust from 75 DPI to approximately 95 DPI (96? The link you sent says a multiple of 6 or 12 is best). Have i got that right? (i haven't yet tried it out because i'm working and can't take the X display offline until tonight.) Many thanks for your help. -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
On 06/10/17 15:33 (GMT+0200) stephan beal apparently typed:
i'm following the information from the link you sent, but one thing isn't clear:
when calculating my dots/inch, do i calculate based on the diagonal length or the horizontal/vertical length... or does it make a difference? [much math snippage] If i understand that correctly, i need to adjust from 75 DPI to approximately 95 DPI (96? The link you sent says a multiple of 6 or 12 is best). Have i got that right?
Fonts are created in and for pt sizing. 1pt is ~1/72". Without going into any detail why, that's the reason the 6 or 12 multiple is preferable. Instead of calculating yourself, look it up. Your display size according to xorg is probably on one of the lines in each /var/log/Xorg.0.log generated. Optionally, use values from http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/dpi.html which you could also use to confirm your calculations. -- "The Lord is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts in him, and I am helped." Psalm 28:7 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
About the font size, edit the /etc/X11/Xresources file by adding the line Xft.dpi: 96 This should solve your problem Francesco stephan beal wrote:
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 02:31, Greg Wallace wrote:
reading on this list, I get the impression that Radeon (ATI) is not looked upon as being of the same quality as NVIDIA.
i just got a new machine to replace me 3-year-old box which died. The older one had an add-on NVidia. i forget which chipset, but definitely not the highest-end. My replacement box has an on-board Radeon Xpress 200G... i'm not impressed with it at all. The problems include:
a) For inexplicable reasons, the fonts are all really small in X. i've had to reconfigure my KDE fonts to larger than normal sizes, which means they're HUGE when i log in remotely from one of the other machines (which use different X drivers). Some apps, like Google Earth don't allow changing the font sizes, and the text in the menus, etc., is literally too small to read. Some screens, like the KDM login, still have annoyingly small fonts. 10-point is almost too small to read under this driver (the "official" driver from ati.com).
b) It flickers while playing video. Not *horribly*, but noticeably. My NVidia, though it was a few years older, didn't do this.
c) Sax crashes under this chipset when i start it and click the "change configuration" button. i had to let the ATI driver installer edit the xorg.conf file (this is a step in the install process) and then hack it a bit by hand.
Under NVidia, i never had any problems when using the default driver or the accelerated one from NVidia, except that i didn't have hardware acceleration using the free driver (but i don't need it for what i do). Aside from when playing 3D-centric games, i didn't notice any difference between those two drivers, and eventually dropped the accelerated driver for the default driver just so i wouldn't spend so much time playing games.
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 15:16, Francesco Teodori wrote:
About the font size, edit the /etc/X11/Xresources file by adding the line
Xft.dpi: 96
This should solve your problem
i tried that, and it does indeed seem to do what i want. One curiosity, though: In KDE Control Center --> X-Server, it still shows me at 75 DPI, as does xdpyinfo: stephan@owl:~/> xdpyinfo | grep resolution resolution: 75x75 dots per inch However, the difference in the font sizes is unmistakable. Now i've got to go reconfigure everything back to normal font sizes :/. :) -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
I am please that my suggestion works. What I know is that Linux applications use the DPI reported by the X server when converting from font point size to pixels. The line you added override that value without affecting the DPI reported by the X server for applications which may find this information useful. This is the reason why you still read 75. Francesco stephan beal wrote:
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 15:16, Francesco Teodori wrote:
About the font size, edit the /etc/X11/Xresources file by adding the line
Xft.dpi: 96
This should solve your problem
i tried that, and it does indeed seem to do what i want. One curiosity, though:
In KDE Control Center --> X-Server, it still shows me at 75 DPI, as does xdpyinfo:
stephan@owl:~/> xdpyinfo | grep resolution resolution: 75x75 dots per inch
However, the difference in the font sizes is unmistakable. Now i've got to go reconfigure everything back to normal font sizes :/.
:)
On 06/10/17 15:45 (GMT+0200) stephan beal apparently typed:
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 15:16, Francesco Teodori wrote:
About the font size, edit the /etc/X11/Xresources file by adding the line
Xft.dpi: 96
This should solve your problem
Only because he's using SUSE (works in Fedora and Mandriva too). If he was using some other distros as well, this would be an invalid instruction in many cases. e.g. in Debians, /etc/X11/Xresources is a directory.
i tried that, and it does indeed seem to do what i want. One curiosity, though:
In KDE Control Center --> X-Server, it still shows me at 75 DPI, as does xdpyinfo:
stephan@owl:~/> xdpyinfo | grep resolution resolution: 75x75 dots per inch
However, the difference in the font sizes is unmistakable. Now i've got to go reconfigure everything back to normal font sizes :/.
Modern Linux X distros have two font systems, legacy xfs, and modern fontconfig. Xft.dpi affects only the new stuff. Xdpyinfo is legacy. Any legacy apps you use will still use tiny fonts unless you include a DisplaySize, or a proprietary substitute for some video cards. -- "The Lord is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts in him, and I am helped." Psalm 28:7 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 03:10 +0200, stephan beal wrote:
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 02:31, Greg Wallace wrote:
reading on this list, I get the impression that Radeon (ATI) is not looked upon as being of the same quality as NVIDIA.
i just got a new machine to replace me 3-year-old box which died. The older one had an add-on NVidia. i forget which chipset, but definitely not the highest-end. My replacement box has an on-board Radeon Xpress 200G... i'm not impressed with it at all. The problems include:
a) For inexplicable reasons, the fonts are all really small in X. i've had to reconfigure my KDE fonts to larger than normal sizes, which means they're HUGE when i log in remotely from one of the other machines (which use different X drivers). Some apps, like Google Earth don't allow changing the font sizes, and the text in the menus, etc., is literally too small to read. Some screens, like the KDM login, still have annoyingly small fonts. 10-point is almost too small to read under this driver (the "official" driver from ati.com).
b) It flickers while playing video. Not *horribly*, but noticeably. My NVidia, though it was a few years older, didn't do this.
c) Sax crashes under this chipset when i start it and click the "change configuration" button. i had to let the ATI driver installer edit the xorg.conf file (this is a step in the install process) and then hack it a bit by hand.
These are all configuration problems. It's is not the card or the
driver's fault, but Sax2 that doesn't detect it correctly. Not only
does it get it wrong on some things, but it leaves out I think two lines
that's important for everything to work like it should
First, init to runlevel 3, then after installing the driver run:
sax2 -m 0=fglrx
Don't give the other parameters in listed in the howto.
Also the last two or so versions of the driver seem to have a bug that
impacts hardware 3D. I'm using 8.26.18
Included is my xorg.conf. The lines that are left out by Sax2, I put an
===> in front. I used SUSE 10 to generate an xorg.conf and then filled
in the blanks.
Hans
# /.../
# SaX generated X11 config file
# Created on: 2006-06-30T17:55:46+0200.
#
# Version: 7.1
# Contact: Marcus Schaefer
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 16:20, Hans du Plooy wrote:
First, init to runlevel 3, then after installing the driver run:
sax2 -m 0=fglrx
Don't give the other parameters in listed in the howto.
Tried that several times. Sax starts and when i click Change Configuration it crashes.
Also the last two or so versions of the driver seem to have a bug that impacts hardware 3D. I'm using 8.26.18
i've got 8.29.6. i'm not worried about 3D acceleration - i don't do much of anything which needs 3D.
Included is my xorg.conf. The lines that are left out by Sax2, I put an ===> in front. I used SUSE 10 to generate an xorg.conf and then filled > in the blanks.
Great! Thanks :).
====> Option "VideoOverlay" "on" ====> Option "OpenGLOverlay" "off"
When i ran xine-check it complained about these things, IIRC, but i didn't investigate how to enable/disable them. Thanks for passing this on. :) -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 17:20, stephan beal wrote:
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 16:20, Hans du Plooy wrote:
====> Option "VideoOverlay" "on" ====> Option "OpenGLOverlay" "off"
When i ran xine-check it complained about these things, IIRC, but i didn't investigate how to enable/disable them. Thanks for passing this on. :)
This did the trick. When i run xine-check, i no longer get any warnings. i'll watch a movie right now and see if it helps :). Thanks for the tips :). -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
Ok, first recommendation is for Nvidia -----Original Message----- From: stephan beal [mailto:stephan@s11n.net] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 8:10 PM To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] Need Video Card Recommendation On Tuesday 17 October 2006 02:31, Greg Wallace wrote:
reading on this list, I get the impression that Radeon (ATI) is not looked upon as being of the same quality as NVIDIA.
i just got a new machine to replace me 3-year-old box which died. The older one had an add-on NVidia. i forget which chipset, but definitely not the highest-end. My replacement box has an on-board Radeon Xpress 200G... i'm not impressed with it at all. The problems include: a) For inexplicable reasons, the fonts are all really small in X. i've had to reconfigure my KDE fonts to larger than normal sizes, which means they're HUGE when i log in remotely from one of the other machines (which use different X drivers). Some apps, like Google Earth don't allow changing the font sizes, and the text in the menus, etc., is literally too small to read. Some screens, like the KDM login, still have annoyingly small fonts. 10-point is almost too small to read under this driver (the "official" driver from ati.com). b) It flickers while playing video. Not *horribly*, but noticeably. My NVidia, though it was a few years older, didn't do this. c) Sax crashes under this chipset when i start it and click the "change configuration" button. i had to let the ATI driver installer edit the xorg.conf file (this is a step in the install process) and then hack it a bit by hand. Under NVidia, i never had any problems when using the default driver or the accelerated one from NVidia, except that i didn't have hardware acceleration using the free driver (but i don't need it for what i do). Aside from when playing 3D-centric games, i didn't notice any difference between those two drivers, and eventually dropped the accelerated driver for the default driver just so i wouldn't spend so much time playing games. -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
Greg Wallace wrote:
I've been having problems with my video recently to the point that when I boot the machine the screen stays blank (no bios messages, nada). I'm suspecting that my 4 year old Radeon VE is playing out. It could be some other problem, but I'm going to try replacing the video card just to see if that fixes the problem. From years of reading on this list, I get the impression that Radeon (ATI) is not looked upon as being of the same quality as NVIDIA. Maybe I'm wrong. And maybe there's some other brand that's considered even better. I'd like to get some recommendations from the list on what brand to buy. I'm running on a desktop machine so I need a small form factor card, which I'm sure most companies make. All recommendations greatly appreciated.
Hi Greg, I recently replaced my NVIDIA FX5200 on SuSE10.0, with a NVIDIA 7600GS on SuSE10.1 ( matched with the SuSE upgrade ). They both worked as the should. I've always preferred NVIDIA to ATI. Just to mention one, it was always the best money / performance relation. But ATI is also a valid graphics card. They are on the same level as NVIDIA. Check TOM's hardware Guide - You can find some useful information there. http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html Rui
Greg Wallace
-- Rui Santos http://www.ruisantos.com/ They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither one of them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Rui Santos wrote:
I've always preferred NVIDIA to ATI. Just to mention one, it was always the best money / performance relation.
But ATI is also a valid graphics card. They are on the same level as NVIDIA. Check TOM's hardware Guide - You can find some useful information there.
Except that in my experience, ATI has *NEVER* worked in Linux. Choose the option that works, choose NVIDIA! (no, I don't work for either of them ;-) ) Raoul. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFNKhsquTvBX+BiJYRAiuiAJ9UaPDzar4vKGQsVVa9NEVLfpp1PgCdG9Fa mqJXvfX1GnkW4Ex5wZrEzbQ= =4nHj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
3 recommendations for Nvidia. This is going about how I anticipated. -----Original Message----- From: Raoul Snyman [mailto:raoul.snyman@saturnlaboratories.co.za] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 4:55 AM Cc: SuSE Mailing List Subject: Re: [SLE] Need Video Card Recommendation -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Rui Santos wrote:
I've always preferred NVIDIA to ATI. Just to mention one, it was always the best money / performance relation.
But ATI is also a valid graphics card. They are on the same level as NVIDIA. Check TOM's hardware Guide - You can find some useful information there.
Except that in my experience, ATI has *NEVER* worked in Linux. Choose the option that works, choose NVIDIA! (no, I don't work for either of them ;-) ) Raoul. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFNKhsquTvBX+BiJYRAiuiAJ9UaPDzar4vKGQsVVa9NEVLfpp1PgCdG9Fa mqJXvfX1GnkW4Ex5wZrEzbQ= =4nHj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 15:16, Greg Wallace wrote:
3 recommendations for Nvidia. This is going about how I anticipated.
-----Original Message----- From: Raoul Snyman [mailto:raoul.snyman@saturnlaboratories.co.za] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 4:55 AM Cc: SuSE Mailing List Subject: Re: [SLE] Need Video Card Recommendation
Rui Santos wrote:
I've always preferred NVIDIA to ATI. Just to mention one, it was always the best money / performance relation.
But ATI is also a valid graphics card. They are on the same level as NVIDIA. Check TOM's hardware Guide - You can find some useful information there.
Except that in my experience, ATI has *NEVER* worked in Linux. Choose the option that works, choose NVIDIA! (no, I don't work for either of them ;-) )
Raoul. ==========
Add one for ATI then, if you're counting. For me nVidia has never worked or worked reliably, plus you can use either the xOrg drivers or ATI drivers and still get 3D! I also haven't heard anything about the ATI drivers having a 2 year old known root bug. If you're choosing the option that just works, then ATI would be my recommendation. Also, there was a file created that had tests of the nVidia cards, the good, the bad, the ugly. It doesn't cover the latest PCI-e cards, but it should give you a good idea. Contact me off list if you would like that, as I think I still have it. bye, Lee
Rui Santos wrote:
Greg Wallace wrote:
I've been having problems with my video recently to the point that when I boot the machine the screen stays blank (no bios messages, nada). I'm suspecting that my 4 year old Radeon VE is playing out. It could be some other problem, but I'm going to try replacing the video card just to see if that fixes the problem. From years of reading on this list, I get the impression that Radeon (ATI) is not looked upon as being of the same quality as NVIDIA. Maybe I'm wrong. And maybe there's some other brand that's considered even better. I'd like to get some recommendations from the list on what brand to buy. I'm running on a desktop machine so I need a small form factor card, which I'm sure most companies make. All recommendations greatly appreciated.
Hi Greg,
I recently replaced my NVIDIA FX5200 on SuSE10.0, with a NVIDIA 7600GS on SuSE10.1 ( matched with the SuSE upgrade ). They both worked as the should.
I've always preferred NVIDIA to ATI. Just to mention one, it was always the best money / performance relation.
But ATI is also a valid graphics card. They are on the same level as NVIDIA. Check TOM's hardware Guide - You can find some useful information there.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html
Rui
Greg Wallace
Why did you replace your 5200 with the 7600gs ? Just curious?
Robert Lewis wrote:
Rui Santos wrote:
Greg Wallace wrote:
I've been having problems with my video recently to the point that when I boot the machine the screen stays blank (no bios messages, nada). I'm suspecting that my 4 year old Radeon VE is playing out. It could be some other problem, but I'm going to try replacing the video card just to see if that fixes the problem. From years of reading on this list, I get the impression that Radeon (ATI) is not looked upon as being of the same quality as NVIDIA. Maybe I'm wrong. And maybe there's some other brand that's considered even better. I'd like to get some recommendations from the list on what brand to buy. I'm running on a desktop machine so I need a small form factor card, which I'm sure most companies make. All recommendations greatly appreciated.
Hi Greg,
I recently replaced my NVIDIA FX5200 on SuSE10.0, with a NVIDIA 7600GS on SuSE10.1 ( matched with the SuSE upgrade ). They both worked as the should.
I've always preferred NVIDIA to ATI. Just to mention one, it was always the best money / performance relation.
But ATI is also a valid graphics card. They are on the same level as NVIDIA. Check TOM's hardware Guide - You can find some useful information there.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html
Rui
Greg Wallace
Why did you replace your 5200 with the 7600gs ? Just curious?
To reasons: 1) I have an AGP slot. I wanted to buy a better medium low end card before AGP vanishes completely. PCI Express seems to be the future so, I had to to act now because I don't want to spend more money in a new machine in the next couple of years. 2) The FX5200 was low on 3D performance, compared to the 7600GS. Much lower. If you check Tom's Hardware Guide, the FX5200 doesn't even appear there anymore :) . I know I could have bought a better graphics card but, I wasn't willing to pay €350,00 for a video card. Also XGL ( haven't tried it ), should also run a lot better with the 7600GS.
I've been having problems with my video recently to the point that when I boot the machine the screen stays blank (no bios messages, nada). I'm suspecting that my 4 year old Radeon VE is playing out. It could be some other problem, but I'm going to try replacing the video card just to see if that fixes the problem. From years of reading on this list, I get the impression that Radeon (ATI) is not looked upon as being of the same quality as NVIDIA. Maybe I'm wrong. And maybe there's some other brand that's considered even better. I'd like to get some recommendations from the
So that's 4 for Nvidia and (I'll say) 1 for Radeon -----Original Message----- From: Rui Santos [mailto:rsantos@ruisantos.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 4:48 AM To: SuSE Mailing List Subject: Re: [SLE] Need Video Card Recommendation Greg Wallace wrote: list
on what brand to buy. I'm running on a desktop machine so I need a small form factor card, which I'm sure most companies make. All recommendations greatly appreciated.
Hi Greg, I recently replaced my NVIDIA FX5200 on SuSE10.0, with a NVIDIA 7600GS on SuSE10.1 ( matched with the SuSE upgrade ). They both worked as the should. I've always preferred NVIDIA to ATI. Just to mention one, it was always the best money / performance relation. But ATI is also a valid graphics card. They are on the same level as NVIDIA. Check TOM's hardware Guide - You can find some useful information there. http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html Rui
Greg Wallace
-- Rui Santos http://www.ruisantos.com/ They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither one of them. -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
Well, the consensus seems to be to go with Nvidia. In reading about all of the configuration problems people were having with the Radeons, it seems that you can get them to perform up to Nvidia standards if you do a lot of re-configuring after installation. But, since all of this reconfiguration seems to only be unnecessary with Radeon, why not buy the card that is the closest to plug and play from the outset; i. e., Nvidia. At least that's what I get out of that conversation. Greg Wallace
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 15:26, Greg Wallace wrote:
Well, the consensus seems to be to go with Nvidia. In reading about all of the configuration problems people were having with the Radeons, it seems that you can get them to perform up to Nvidia standards if you do a lot of re-configuring after installation. But, since all of this reconfiguration seems to only be unnecessary with Radeon, why not buy the card that is the closest to plug and play from the outset; i. e., Nvidia. At least that's what I get out of that conversation.
Greg Wallace
I think you've got it right. I used ATI cards for a long time and didn't have any real problems other than with 3D which I didn't use much. But when 10.1 came along, the ATI card just wouldn't work (might have been the fault of 10.1 I suppose since the card was working before.) I spent a week messing with 10.1 and almost gave up on it but finally, with prayers over chicken legs and a few other incantations, I got it to work. But I immediately went out and got an Nvidia card because: 1) The linux support is better 2) I have easy contact with an Nvidia developer so I know the quality and thought that goes into their drivers. Been happy with the Nvidia cards.
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 15:26, Greg Wallace wrote:
Well, the consensus seems to be to go with Nvidia. In reading about all of the configuration problems people were having with the Radeons, it seems that you can get them to perform up to Nvidia standards if you do a lot of re-configuring after installation. But, since all of this reconfiguration seems to only be unnecessary with Radeon, why not buy the card that is the closest to plug and play from the outset; i. e., Nvidia. At least that's what I get out of that conversation.
Greg Wallace =========
I would think this is a bad assumption to be made Greg. If you've been on this list long, and I believe you have, then you read many the horror story written by nVidia owners. I would almost betcha that for each one that recommends it here, they've had some problem they also posted here. ;-) bye Lee
Greg, On Monday 16 October 2006 17:31, Greg Wallace wrote:
... From years of reading on this list, I get the impression that Radeon (ATI) is not looked upon as being of the same quality as NVIDIA. ... All recommendations greatly appreciated.
I now have one system with an ATI (Radeon 9600) and one with nVidia (GeForce 7300). (Plus I have a fallback Matrox card with no DVI that I used up until I got my first flat-panel display and the ATI card). I've had the ATI card for over a year. The nVidia I've had only a week. I have to say the nVidia experience, while shorter by far, has been less problematic, at least as far as using the proprietary, 3D- / OpenGL-supporting drivers goes. If the 3D stuff mattered to me, then I'd be pretty frustrated with ATI (though I'm sure I could have made it work). But by comparison, the nVidia driver installation was pretty simple and straightforward based on the instructions on the openSUSE Wiki. The fact that you have to go through part of that installation procedure with the system in non-graphics mode whenever a new kernel is installed isn't ideal, but I already deal with a similar situation for VMware (though that can be done in graphics mode). I consider it to be just one of those fact-of-life things, at least for now. I originally got the ATI card because of a Tom's Hardware review stating that it had better DVI signal quality than nVidia. But I can now say based on A-B comparison that you cannot tell the difference in sharpness or clarity (text is what matters most for me, since these are software development systems and I go for the smallest fonts that are legible at arm's length). From that standpoint, they're both outstanding and I'd never voluntarily go back to use a CRT or VGA. But if the ultra-fancy 3D blizz matters to you (as it does to gamers, primarily), then you'll need to consider these other issues of driver installation. Since there seems to be no consensus of experience hereabouts, it seems like you're going to have to roll the dice... That, or do more research. Ain't the 'Net great?
Greg Wallace
Randall Schulz
participants (12)
-
BandiPat -
Bruce Marshall -
Felix Miata -
Francesco Teodori -
Greg Wallace -
Hans du Plooy -
Randall R Schulz -
Raoul Snyman -
Robert Lewis -
Rui Santos -
Russbucket -
stephan beal