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.
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
AMD may be a good bargain if one chooses to use Windows... you have no Sony Vegas on Linux. That's the point of the article.
Should you as a consumer be concerned about lack of competition? Yes. But to throw money at a company that basically says: "here's the HW, here's the documentation, have fun getting it to actually run" for the sake of "competition" is stupid and wrong. Intel does a better job at supporting linux users. They release documentation and pay engineers to work on the drivers.
If you have a philosophical problem with closed source, choose Intel. If you're previously an AMD user, chances are that you were not a hard-core gamer anyway and the Iris IGP will be enough for you.
I hate them for the fact that they don't give two cents about Linux users. I hate that because of them, my only choices on Linux are nvidia (if I want to get performance from the HW) or Intel. Hell, if Phoronix is to be believed, they even thought that producing a proper changelog for their Linux driver was too costly.
This is the company you're trying to get me to support?! Seriously?! F them!
0 Likes
Quoting: KallestofelesHi 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...
try this for searching for the best cpu, however i would add the fx8350 between the i3's and i5's, especially if you're also doing productivity
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106.html
0 Likes
Oh gosh, this box looks terrible :D Not interesting at all, since I often had bad experiences with Gigabyte motherboards... not to talk about AMD graphics on Linux.
0 Likes
It's AMD-powered. Nuff said.
0 Likes
While I agree that AMD does have rather poor Linux support, their price to performance ratio cannot be beat. My 290x (My first AMD Gpu - Had 450 GTS - 560Ti - and GTX 680) destroys anything else in its price range (for the record I got mine for $530). Yes, I use windows at the moment for gaming, but you can't argue with this performance.
Also, You get what you pay for in terms of CPUS, Sure the i5 beats the 8350 in some benchmarks, but it's also more expensive. And for gaming you cannot tell the difference. While I currently use Intel CPUs, I plan my next upgrade cycle to involve a crazily overclocked AMD chip.
It's also nor fair to compare Intel to AMD. Sure intel pays engineers to work on Linux, but so does AMD. AMD is a much smaller company than intel, therefore the same output/financial support cannot be expected.
AMD GPUS: Not for linux, yet (I'm looking at you AMD). AMD CPUS: Hell yeah.
Also, You get what you pay for in terms of CPUS, Sure the i5 beats the 8350 in some benchmarks, but it's also more expensive. And for gaming you cannot tell the difference. While I currently use Intel CPUs, I plan my next upgrade cycle to involve a crazily overclocked AMD chip.
It's also nor fair to compare Intel to AMD. Sure intel pays engineers to work on Linux, but so does AMD. AMD is a much smaller company than intel, therefore the same output/financial support cannot be expected.
AMD GPUS: Not for linux, yet (I'm looking at you AMD). AMD CPUS: Hell yeah.
0 Likes
I really do hope things change in future, I would like nothing better than to not have to install extra drivers for a graphics card.
0 Likes
Quoting: GuestQuoting: Anonymousi don't really see wwhy people would hate on amd's processors, their 8350 is an extremely good value for only 10$ 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 nvidiaIt boils down to historical reasons. nVidia got there first ...
(snip comparison of GPUs instead of CPUs)
Read the question again... it's more about Intel vs. AMD on processors, than nVidia vs. AMD on graphics.
I tend to go for AMD on low-cost computers nowadays, and those computers have been lasting a long time for good total value. Also AMD is way better on low-power computers, at least until an upcoming generation of Atoms gets rid of the trashy powervr-based integrated GPUs (GMA 500/600/3600/3650).
Gamers who only purchase high-performance gaming machines might go Intel 100% of the time, but it is likely that even they have benefitted from Intel having some plausible competition, as the original poster said.
1 Likes, Who?
If I had spare cash I would build myself an AMD box that was using FOSS graphics drivers only, so that way I could keep up with how they are.
It is always interesting to see people say how good the FOSS drivers are now, as when I tried them on my old APU (when I say old, not age but as in I just got an intel processor) they utterly fell over and crashed everything constantly, was a shame.
It is always interesting to see people say how good the FOSS drivers are now, as when I tried them on my old APU (when I say old, not age but as in I just got an intel processor) they utterly fell over and crashed everything constantly, was a shame.
0 Likes
Isn't the Arse Technica article just another poorly veiled attempt to scare as many people away from Linux as possible? In their opinion, gaming on Linux is a stupid idea and will never take off, so nobody should even consider it and should just use Windows instead. :|
0 Likes
Quoting: WorMzyIsn't the Arse Technica article just another poorly veiled attempt to scare as many people away from Linux as possible? In their opinion, gaming on Linux is a stupid idea and will never take off, so nobody should even consider it and should just use Windows instead. :|
I wouldn't assume that... they've got a bunch of writers, and no reason to think their biases are all uniform. It looks like this one is open to Linux gaming gaining momentum, at least in the form of SteamBox, and that's why he bothered to try installing SteamOS for the review and bothered to mention poor Linux compatibility as a weakness!
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me