Support us on Patreon
PayPal
This is fun, Ars Technica a rather big general tech news website has done a review of Gigabyte's AMD powered mini gaming box and give it a demerit for its poor Linux support.
The unit uses a dual-graphics setup (so you can instantly see where this is going), but sadly even the one they tried that had a single graphics chip would not output any signal when SteamOS was installed on it. SteamOS still has ways to go.
Luckily Ubuntu 14.04 worked fine on it, they noted the open-source drivers picked up both graphics card, but only used the low powered one and the catalyst drivers only used the high powered one, not ideal by any measure and it makes having both a bit pointless.
They sum it up rather well I think:
The sad state of things, when you go to AMD that is. They also then note under "The bad" bullet point section that "Relatively poor Linux support" which is fun to see poor Linux support getting downvotes from major sites now.
As I have learnt personally over the years AMD just don't have good drivers. I was exclusively an AMD graphics card buyer for their prices for years before I got utterly fed-up of constant issues with their drivers, I am now on Nvidia and couldn't be happier with the drivers performance.
I also was an AMD Processor fan for multiple years on end until Intel constantly outperformed them, I am also now happily an Intel CPU buyer.
If you really are that strapped for cash yes AMD is there, but if you ever want performance Intel & Nvidia are just the way to go for gaming and I can't see that ever changing. AMD have decided to side-step driver issues pushing their new Mantle API which may not even get Linux support, shocking. It's hard to see why people are still fans of AMD, while yes they provide open source help with documents and a bit of coding it isn't enough to remain competitive.
Serious gamers won't buy on the prospect of one day having decent open source GPU drivers, they don't care. They want to buy something that will work without having to play catch-up with open source drivers. Like myself for example, there is no way I could rely on open source drivers I need to have all the latest games work and not be bogged down in driver politics.
Take Windows converts as another example, do you think they care about FOSS philosophies? Probably not, they want good performance and something that works right away for the latest games using the latest OpenGL. So, if they where testing out SteamOS on this box and someone told them about the FOSS drivers playing catch-up they wouldn't care, they would want hardware and drivers that work.
It seems an all-round poor box anyway from their testing from RAM slots dying to poor CPU performance.
Read the full 3 page spread here. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
The unit uses a dual-graphics setup (so you can instantly see where this is going), but sadly even the one they tried that had a single graphics chip would not output any signal when SteamOS was installed on it. SteamOS still has ways to go.
Luckily Ubuntu 14.04 worked fine on it, they noted the open-source drivers picked up both graphics card, but only used the low powered one and the catalyst drivers only used the high powered one, not ideal by any measure and it makes having both a bit pointless.
They sum it up rather well I think:
QuoteAt this point we can't really recommend the Brix Gaming as a Linux box, both because of lackluster driver support and because the box's strengths (good GPU performance) don't really complement Linux's strengths. For all of Valve's ambitions, Linux isn't an OS most people are going to want to game on, because there just aren't that many high-end games there. Assuming SteamOS does gain some momentum and starts to attract developers, Gigabyte and others will have had a generation or two to make better, faster hardware. In short, as much as we wanted it to be, this is not the Steam Machine you're looking for.
The sad state of things, when you go to AMD that is. They also then note under "The bad" bullet point section that "Relatively poor Linux support" which is fun to see poor Linux support getting downvotes from major sites now.
As I have learnt personally over the years AMD just don't have good drivers. I was exclusively an AMD graphics card buyer for their prices for years before I got utterly fed-up of constant issues with their drivers, I am now on Nvidia and couldn't be happier with the drivers performance.
I also was an AMD Processor fan for multiple years on end until Intel constantly outperformed them, I am also now happily an Intel CPU buyer.
If you really are that strapped for cash yes AMD is there, but if you ever want performance Intel & Nvidia are just the way to go for gaming and I can't see that ever changing. AMD have decided to side-step driver issues pushing their new Mantle API which may not even get Linux support, shocking. It's hard to see why people are still fans of AMD, while yes they provide open source help with documents and a bit of coding it isn't enough to remain competitive.
Serious gamers won't buy on the prospect of one day having decent open source GPU drivers, they don't care. They want to buy something that will work without having to play catch-up with open source drivers. Like myself for example, there is no way I could rely on open source drivers I need to have all the latest games work and not be bogged down in driver politics.
Take Windows converts as another example, do you think they care about FOSS philosophies? Probably not, they want good performance and something that works right away for the latest games using the latest OpenGL. So, if they where testing out SteamOS on this box and someone told them about the FOSS drivers playing catch-up they wouldn't care, they would want hardware and drivers that work.
It seems an all-round poor box anyway from their testing from RAM slots dying to poor CPU performance.
Read the full 3 page spread here. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
0 Likes
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
good start
1 Likes, Who?
AMD? nope tnx!
1 Likes, Who?
Lefteah, my Linux box started out as a 100% amd machine, already changed the GPU, with next major update CPU going to be Intel as well :/
0 Likes
My last AMD card. Bought it last summer radeon 7770. I'm better off with playing on integrated intel's GPU
1 Likes, Who?
I am happy with my AMD card, which works fine with FOSS drivers. But i would also recommend only NVidia GPUs for steam machines at the moment.
0 Likes
i don't really see wwhy people would hate on amd's processors, their 8350 is an extremely good value for only 10$ more than the i3's, ofc they don't perform as well as the i5's and i7's in single threaded applications, but in stuff like sony vegas with high multicore support it beats the i5's and some i7's, i think everone here, even the haters, know that without amd, and intel and nvidia basically having a monopoly, we would pay at least twice the ammount we pay now, and not getting any speed improvements from both intel and nvidia
1 Likes, Who?
Hi All,
Good article, thank you for the information.
AMD's GPU drivers have always suffered a lot. After Linus giving a middle finger to nVidia, they stepped up their game (was not regarding GPU performance but it seemed to work on that end as well) and are providing excellent driver support under Linux. My actual question would be, how are the actual CPU comparison between Intel and AMD in regards to gaming? I have looked for some info on the web but all I get is compression, rendering times etc on Linux. Nothing regarding head-to-head Intel vs AMD CPU comparison with different games under Linux. Have I missed something and can someone give me a link? Or has no such comparison simply taken place...
Good article, thank you for the information.
AMD's GPU drivers have always suffered a lot. After Linus giving a middle finger to nVidia, they stepped up their game (was not regarding GPU performance but it seemed to work on that end as well) and are providing excellent driver support under Linux. My actual question would be, how are the actual CPU comparison between Intel and AMD in regards to gaming? I have looked for some info on the web but all I get is compression, rendering times etc on Linux. Nothing regarding head-to-head Intel vs AMD CPU comparison with different games under Linux. Have I missed something and can someone give me a link? Or has no such comparison simply taken place...
0 Likes
Quoting: Anonymousi don't really see wwhy people would hate on amd's processors, their 8350 is an extremely good value for only 10$ more than the i3's, ofc they don't perform as well as the i5's and i7's in single threaded applications, but in stuff like sony vegas with high multicore support it beats the i5's and some i7's, i think everone here, even the haters, know that without amd, and intel and nvidia basically having a monopoly, we would pay at least twice the ammount we pay now, and not getting any speed improvements from both intel and nvidia
Hi,
I use Nvidia GPU : GTX470 with AMD CPU "FX 8320" O/C at 4.5GHz. It's very very good processor. The 4.5GHz is really correct on monothreads.
0 Likes
While I will make a big circle around any AMD-based GPU, I am still a happy AMD CPU user. My main Linux PC sports an AMD E350 with a GeForce 9500GT and my main gaming PC has some AMD Phenom with 4x3GHz and a GeForce 450GTS.
While it is true that Intel CPUs often outperform AMD CPUs one still need to keep two things in mind:
1) Even the modest AMD quadcore will be most likely fast enough for most usages and still cost a lot less than a higher level Intel CPU (e.g. Intel I5)
2) For those with the need of more power AMD has always to offer 6 or 8 core CPUs :)
For me it boils down to this:
Big wallet and non-AMD attitude = Intel CPU buyer ;)
While it is true that Intel CPUs often outperform AMD CPUs one still need to keep two things in mind:
1) Even the modest AMD quadcore will be most likely fast enough for most usages and still cost a lot less than a higher level Intel CPU (e.g. Intel I5)
2) For those with the need of more power AMD has always to offer 6 or 8 core CPUs :)
For me it boils down to this:
Big wallet and non-AMD attitude = Intel CPU buyer ;)
0 Likes
Quoting: HolgerWhile I will make a big circle around any AMD-based GPU, I am still a happy AMD CPU user. My main Linux PC sports an AMD E350 with a GeForce 9500GT and my main gaming PC has some AMD Phenom with 4x3GHz and a GeForce 450GTS.
While it is true that Intel CPUs often outperform AMD CPUs one still need to keep two things in mind:
1) Even the modest AMD quadcore will be most likely fast enough for most usages and still cost a lot less than a higher level Intel CPU (e.g. Intel I5)
2) For those with the need of more power AMD has always to offer 6 or 8 core CPUs :)
For me it boils down to this:
Big wallet and non-AMD attitude = Intel CPU buyer ;)
See the CPU% and CPU Charge.
0 Likes
See more from me