NVIDIA releases the GeForce RTX 2060 and 2070 "SUPER" GPUs, along with a new Linux driver

...
As a Linux user I don't see any reason to buy Nvidia hardware...

Performance? Last time I checked, AMD is still lagging behind Nvidia. On userbenchamark 2080ti (flagship, not best Nvidia GPU) is more than 25% more powerful than 5700 XT (best AMD GPU). And that's raw power, I am pretty sure games and game engines are much better optimized for Nvidia than AMD, so the real gap in performance in games is probably much bigger.

As a Linux user I see a clear reason why to buy Nvidia hardware.

...
As a Linux user I don't see any reason to buy Nvidia hardware...

Performance? Last time I checked, AMD is still lagging behind Nvidia. On userbenchamark 2080ti (flagship, not best Nvidia GPU) is more than 25% more powerful than 5700 XT (best AMD GPU). And that's raw power, I am pretty sure games and game engines are much better optimized for Nvidia than AMD, so the real gap in performance in games is probably much bigger.

As a Linux user I see a clear reason why to buy Nvidia hardware.

You can argue a reason if you want to buy a highest end. But still, I would go for a Radeon VII all the time instead of the RTX 2080 (radeon vii benchs ).

Anyway, not everyone has a budget for a 2080 Ti and RX 5700 has a way better performance per dollar ratio than their Nvidia counter parts. And as I already said, in the same way as in Windows, AMD GPUs gives you a better performance per dollar than Nvidia: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-sub200-2019gpus&num=9


Last edited by x_wing on 10 Jul 2019 at 11:50 am UTC

Also, getting stuff into the kernel and distributions is going a way above putting out a blob that may or may not work with your version of a kernel. (Plus they made an effort to incorporate most of their software (aside the firmware) to the larger linux ecosystem).

Then I was very lucky that it always worked for me, even with the betas on arch. Mesa on the other hand was VERY buggy with native linux games not so long ago - your kernel didn't matter.

Really? Maybe that was because AMD only started to push the open stack very recently, until then they had a separate driver much like nvidia. Ever since they made the effort to develop their open stack it's been very solid.

You can argue a reason if you want to buy a highest end.

It is not "highest end", it is "high end". Nvidia has even more powerful cards like Titan or Quadro...

But still, I would go for a Radeon VII all the time instead of the RTX 2080 (radeon vii benchs ).

Anyway, not everyone has a budget for a 2080 Ti and RX 5700 has a way better performance per dollar ratio than their Nvidia counter parts. And as I already said, in the same way as in Windows, AMD GPUs gives you a better performance per dollar than Nvidia: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-sub200-2019gpus&num=9

Yeah, for low and mid range I would too go with AMD. But on the high end of a performance spectrum there is no choice, there is no competitor for 2080ti or higher. (Also worth noting more performant AMD GPUs had issues with overheating and shutting down pc [without overclocking], not sure if it is fixed.) If you want performance, you don't care much, if at all, about fps/$ ratio. In my case I am planning to buy Index, so I am saving for high end GPU to be able to feed 144FPS (or at least 90) at >4k resolution with reasonable quality settings. And don't get me wrong, I would prefer an AMD card, but there is simply none in this specific (sub)market. I hope my next card will be AMD, that the next (or after next) gen AMD cards will start competing with high end Nvidia ones.

You can argue a reason if you want to buy a highest end.

It is not "highest end", it is "high end". Nvidia has even more powerful cards like Titan or Quadro...

Radeon VII and the 2080 are still high end, though. It's a big cluster of things that tier (a lets keep Quadro out of Scope, as we would have to bring AMD PRO and Frontier edition)

Yeah, for low and mid range I would too go with AMD. But on the high end of a performance spectrum there is no choice, there is no competitor for 2080ti or higher. (Also worth noting more performant AMD GPUs had issues with overheating and shutting down pc [without overclocking], not sure if it is fixed.)

I will not argue that 2080ti has no competition for now. But Radeon VII is also high end, in the same way as RTX 2070 and 5700 XT are middle-high end. But saying that "AMD is still lagging behind Nvidia" or that Mesa features are a "concentrating on useless things" is a complete bias.

There way too many advantages of having the Open Source driver (remember gallium-nine?) and the hardware that sells AMD has an excellent performance compared to Nvidia (if not better). We are talking about the quality of a product in our OS, and AMD exceeds by far to Nvidia products in almost every tier (from my point of view).

By the way, regarding the overheating "issue" both sides has this troubles: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/rtx-2080-ti-gpu-defects-launch,37995.html

If you want performance, you don't care much, if at all, about fps/$ ratio. In my case I am planning to buy Index, so I am saving for high end GPU to be able to feed 144FPS (or at least 90) at >4k resolution with reasonable quality settings. And don't get me wrong, I would prefer an AMD card, but there is simply none in this specific (sub)market. I hope my next card will be AMD, that the next (or after next) gen AMD cards will start competing with high end Nvidia ones.

Well, you're a very specific customer so that is way you prefer a product created for a very specific market. But for almost everyone else, AMD still have excellent product in all the tiers and is (from my point of view) the best choice for a Linux user.


Last edited by x_wing on 11 Jul 2019 at 1:00 pm UTC

Not really, but it seems like it does have quite a few disadvantages.

What kind? The only reason Nvidia is not opening their driver is anti-competitive. I.e. they want leverage over server market. Are you whitewashing such kind of behavior? What Nvidia doing is disgusting, and not something Linux users should be accepting.


Last edited by Shmerl on 22 Jul 2019 at 3:56 pm UTC

Not really, but it seems like it does have quite a few disadvantages.

What kind? The only reason Nvidia is not opening their driver is anti-competitive. I.e. they want leverage over server market. Are you whitewashing such kind of behavior? What Nvidia doing is disgusting, and not something Linux users should be accepting.

And AMD is doing the same thing. They open the trivial stuff, but keep other things they think are important. Like the actual shader compiler of the AMD driver.

They are companies, they do what suits them. AMD is no more ethical than NVidia is.

And AMD is doing the same thing. They open the trivial stuff, but keep other things they think are important. Like the actual shader compiler of the AMD driver.

They are companies, they do what suits them. AMD is no more ethical than NVidia is.

They might do what "suits them", but when it's anti-competitive junk, I don't get why Linux users jump to whitewash it.

And AMD is doing the same thing. They open the trivial stuff, but keep other things they think are important. Like the actual shader compiler of the AMD driver.

They are companies, they do what suits them. AMD is no more ethical than NVidia is.

They might do what "suits them", but when it's anti-competitive junk, I don't get why Linux users jump to whitewash it.

Because if the roles were reversed and nvidia would be playing catch up, AMD would be no different. It's simple business. The only thing that matters is that it is preferable to have open support for hardware. Which is a bandwagon I will step on when support is complete. Unfortunately, things open source can also take a lot of time.

The only thing that matters is that it is preferable to have open support for hardware.

Not preferable, required for proper Linux support. I.e. those who don't do it while having all resources to, are foul players in the Linux ecosystem. And Nvidia is such an example. Hypothetical speculation like "what if it was reversed" is pointless.


Last edited by Shmerl on 22 Jul 2019 at 4:31 pm UTC

There way too many advantages of having the Open Source driver

Not really, but it seems like it does have quite a few disadvantages.

Like the driver issue? Check it out here: https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/release-notes/rn-amdgpu-unified-navi-linux

I mentioned you way too many advantages for gaming on Linux with the FOSS graphic driver. Think whatever you want.

and the hardware that sells AMD has an excellent performance compared to Nvidia (if not better).

And that's a lie according to the benchmarks. The 5700xt is a good card but the rest from amd are really weak competitors.

Are you sure? https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=radeon-5700-linuxgl&num=6

We are talking about the quality of a product in our OS, and AMD exceeds by far to Nvidia products in almost every tier (from my point of view).

Well, your point of view is biased so that's your problem.

Is a bias to use software quality in the equation of an overall quality? I think not... but well, that's what I think.

By the way, regarding the overheating "issue" both sides has this troubles: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/rtx-2080-ti-gpu-defects-launch,37995.html

Funny, that with AMD it's almost always the first issue.

And you call me "biased" <3


Last edited by x_wing on 22 Jul 2019 at 6:20 pm UTC

More seriously it's been my experience that people often say things like "X isn't a religion" when what they mean is "I don't care about ethics and I don't want to have to defend that".

And when I hear people saying things like what you said I know what they mean is "I don't understand Intellectual Property or licensing and I would rather follow trends mindlessly instead of thinking objectively."

There are ethical and functional reasons to prefer open source when it's feasible

Ethical? No. Functional? Yes, but it depends. Most probably nvidia doesn't need to hide its code - it's doing it because their code might contain 3rd-party code with a different license. This is usually the case with most closed-source software.

particularly when it comes to infrastructure or other as it were "central" things which can create lock-in.

If you use nvidia you use nvidia - there is no real lock-in. Nvidia is not a necessity anyway.

The world would be a better place in significant respects if, in all the niches that have open source versions, those open source versions dominated over closed.

Only if piracy wouldn't exist.

Games are a weird corner case in which open source is rarely feasible, and there are various reasons why it is difficult for that to change and why it doesn't matter nearly as much.

IP is not a corner case - it's the main case.

So not worrying about the open sourceness of games is not really a reason you shouldn't be allowed to find open source important in general. And in general, open source is in fact important.

Open-source is important, but not critical. It could be the defacto standard if piracy wouldn't exist.

There is nothing here that gives me the impression that you understand either my points or perhaps even yours. I could give you a dissertation on ethics, the nature of open source and copyleft licenses, the ephemeral nature of games, the distinction between things like programs and recipes on one hand and things like art and stories on the other, and why piracy is not all that important, but you wouldn't read it with an eye to understanding what I'm getting at so there isn't much point.

@lunix: You claim that approach of Linux kernel maintainers is nonsense? Conversation closed right away, no point to continue. Stop trolling here.


Last edited by Shmerl on 4 Aug 2019 at 6:05 pm UTC

My arguments is the position of Linux kernel maintainers, and you called it nonsense. As I said, there is no point to debate this with you, since you mixed up Linux with something else.


Last edited by Shmerl on 4 Aug 2019 at 7:40 pm UTC

It's okay to disagree, it's not okay to throw insults or announce you're blocking someone. Stop it.

Telling about blocking is aimed at reducing further flaming. Since the user might think I agree with his posts by not answering. He should know, I'll simply not read them anymore.

You didn't mention any advantage.

I mentioned gallium 9, didn't I? I also said that the way AMD release and supports their drivers is the proper way to do it in our system. You know "... you're not reading my posts (properly)...".

Are you sure? https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=radeon-5700-linuxgl&num=6

Yes, I'm sure. The 5700xt card is impressive but the rest aren't.

So, the numbers of the 5700 are not impressive? Radeon VII aren't too? I showed you some benchs on Linux, not sure what else I can do...

Well, if you're interested in software quality then why even bother with mesa?

Solid answer. Well done! To answer this solid argument I'll quote myself:

And you call me "biased" <3

Yes, that's the only relevant thing you mentioned
. . .
Also, stop with this "proper" way nonsense
. . .
AMD can only compete at the mid-tier but you won't care because you AMD users were defending AMD and trolling nvidia users
. . .
More smugness from an AMD user - what a surprise! I know, I know - "don't ever question the holy mesa driver!"

You know, both I and various other people I have seen arguing with you normally have very calm, pleasant discussions on these boards. All of us seem to find this impossible with you. Seems to me the unifying factor here is you, consistently dissing everyone you talk to.
Would it kill you to be civil?

That's clearly not an advantage - you have a harder time getting the latest drivers. Also, stop with this "proper" way nonsense - the linux kernel is monolithic but it doesn't mean that it won't work without integrated drivers - quite the opposite, gpu drivers are better when they're separated because you can access even the beta drivers without compiling your own kernel. And a reminder:

Nvidia: releases the driver with the hardware on the same day, even for linux.
AMD: "We are targeting a launch day driver [for Linux] but Windows obviously takes priority"(https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2019/07/02/will-amd-radeon-rx-5700xt-graphics-cards-support-linux-gaming/#4e6d19043af9)

Help me reading the date of this release: https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/release-notes/rn-amdgpu-unified-navi-linux

More smugness from an AMD user - what a surprise! I know, I know - "don't ever question the holy mesa driver!"

I decided that the quality of my answers will be the same as yours (funny enough, this seems to trigger you).

You talk about quality without even giving any reason to support the "this is shit" statement you bring. You don't even seems to understand the difference between monolithic a modular kernel. IMHO there is no point to debate with someone that is only a big bag of biases.

You know, both I and various other people I have seen arguing with you normally have very calm, pleasant discussions on these boards. All of us seem to find this impossible with you. Seems to me the unifying factor here is you, consistently dissing everyone you talk to.
Would it kill you to be civil?

In the first comment you wrote to me you were VERY condescending and acting holier-than-thou. In your second comment you acted like I was stupid and you were some kind of enlightened genius who could educate anyone with a few words.
The second guy was the usual AMD fanboy: amd gud, nvidia bad.
The third one dissed every nvidia user and he's constantly doing that.

Would it kill you amd users to be civil and objective once? Oh, never mind, I'm out.

Since lunix is out, this isn't for lunix.
But I would like to note for future reference that if someone makes a point which is about sides and says nasty things about the side they are not on, which can be expected to have some representatives around, that's going to lead to problems even if they are not already in a discussion with a particular specific person on that side. So then, sure, if someone from that side comes along and takes issue snippily, they can then say "Look! They're being mean to me and I didn't even do anything!"
But it's kind of disingenuous; the fact is that there's a group of people they already collectively gave the finger, and it's not too surprising if members of that group take offense. There's actually a couple fairly venerable (by internet standards) words for the act of talking trash online about groups you expect to be reading the trashtalk. They are not words synonymous with "respect".
So for instance, say you're on a Linux-oriented discussion board and call open source a religion--the very deliberate implication of which is that positive beliefs about open source are baseless and irrational, and in turn that people holding such beliefs must be unthinking, gullible fools. You can expect that there are going to be people on such a board who have positive beliefs about open source and consider this insulting. Further, since they have likely arrived at those beliefs by thoughtful reflection, they are going to think the person saying it is an aggressive moron or an exemplar of certain venerable internet terms referenced above. Someone leading off with that kind of approach should be grateful if all they get is condescension. Well, unless a flame war is what they were after from the start.

So yeah. Provocative behaviour on internet boards is not limited to attacks on individuals. Trolling is generally aimed at broader groups.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 6 Aug 2019 at 7:42 pm UTC