| [03:54] <desertc> *waves* | |
| [03:56] <desertc> Perhaps this is a better question for the forums... If I wanted to take advantage of the new open source drivers being produced these days by Intel and AMD, then what would be the best (fastest or best performing) card to do so? | |
| [03:56] <desertc> I realize that the Intel drivers only support their on-board chipsets, but I am thinking about buying a new computer anyway, so it could be an option. | |
| [03:57] <bryce> presently the 945 is the best supported intel chipset | |
| [03:58] <bryce> the 965 is newer and promises better features but presently it's still got some kinks to work out in the driver | |
| [03:58] <desertc> yeah, I was eyeing the 965GM chips. You think in 6 months the drivers will improve? | |
| [03:59] <bryce> most of the issues relate to compiz, so if you don't care about that, the 965 is quite serviceable | |
| [03:59] <bryce> yes | |
| [03:59] <desertc> Also, I had heard that the AMD (ATI) open source drivers were now featuring 3D components. Any truth to it? | |
| [04:00] <desertc> Do you use the Intel graphics yourself? I was wondering if they supported DVI connectors on the mainboard. I can't seem to find that information anywhere. | |
| [04:00] <bryce> not exactly; there are actually two different open source drivers for ATI cards | |
| [04:00] <bryce> the first, -ati, is quite stable and I use it myself on my main desktop, however it's 2D only | |
| [04:01] <bryce> the other, -radeonhd, promises 3D functionality but is quite new and not mature enough for widespread use (we've not even put it in main or done much testing for integration in ubuntu) | |
| [04:02] <desertc> I am really excited about the new open source drivers being made available. I am more than willing to give up speed to have the best Linux support possible. But, all that said, I'd like to get the fastest ones I can get, too. | |
| [04:03] <desertc> It's really wonderful - just five years ago it seemed like there was never going to be any good cards with open kernel drivers, and now there is even a selection to which to choose. | |
| [04:03] <bryce> it depends a lot on your usage pattern | |
| [04:04] <bryce> if are into gaming heavily and want the best performance there, your choice will be different than if you want the be able to try out newish X technologies when they come out, but are less driven by 3D performance | |
| [04:04] <desertc> Do you know of a place that collects metrics on the open source driver performance? I'd like to see a list of : "Here's all the cards and chips with open drivers. Here's the glxgears numbers for the cards, cross referenced by driver versions." | |
| [04:05] <bryce> also it depends on where you are on the scale of open vs. closed drivers. If you absolutely don't want to touch closed source, then intel is going to be a stronger choice, whereas if you're more allowing of using closed source sometimes or all the time, the option to boot into fglrx might be valuable | |
| [04:06] <desertc> I would like this information not just for myself, but for all the people who say that for any kind of decent performance you still need to get a proprietary card. | |
| [04:06] <bryce> I'd look to phoronix.com | |
| [04:07] <bryce> oh, and fwiw, glxgears is not really a good benchmarking tool. It's useful for troubleshooting performance regressions or to verify glx is working, but that's really about it | |
| [04:07] <desertc> I've been browsing phoronix today, but they don't have the focus on the open source drivers that I am seeking. They do have some data on the open source drivers, just as a point of reference, but not the hard data comparing all open source solutions. | |
| [04:07] <bryce> desertc: maybe you should put a page together. :-) | |
| [04:08] <desertc> If only I had the computer lab to run benchmarks... :) | |
| [04:08] <bryce> I think phoronix does ample testing of different cards and drivers, but I don't think they've gathered the data all into one easily digested page | |
| [04:08] <desertc> I posed this question to the guy who runs phoronix last year, but he did not seem all that interested. | |
| [04:09] <bryce> I'd be interested in knowing of a page like that to refer people to | |
| [04:09] <desertc> You don't know anything about DVI connectors on the Intel chips, do you? | |
| [04:10] <bryce> a bit. they should work fine afaik | |
| [04:10] <desertc> Well, I personally am sick of seeing people saying that the open source graphic solutions are available, that they are not worth buying because they are all slow. That's a real slap in the face to the companies that brought these solutions available, for Linux people to just dismiss them. | |
| [04:12] <desertc> If we had all the same people who were all begging and signing petitions for ATI and NVIDIA to open their drivers actually buying these solutions, then we would have a lot more eyeballs on the quality and performance of these open solutions. | |
| [04:13] <desertc> Instead, they seem to dismiss these open solutions and cling even tighter to their proprietary solution. Makes me sad. Makes baby Tux cry. | |
| [04:13] <bryce> well, the best way to help is spending time learning the driver internals and then sending patches. ;-) | |
| [04:14] <desertc> I think I will post something on the Ubuntu Forums. Maybe we can collect some numbers there from people who are already using the graphics cards. | |
| [04:14] <desertc> What kind of benchmark would you recommend that is maybe already available on Ubuntu or easily accessible to most Ubuntu users? | |
| [04:15] <desertc> Is there a better one than glxgears? | |
| [04:15] <bryce> well unfortunately I don't know of a good open source benchmark... that might actually be a good research starting point | |
| [04:15] <bryce> mining through the xorg-devel@ mailing list at freedesktop might turn up something | |
| [04:16] <bryce> or get doom or some other relevant workload that provides fps numbers, and measure that | |
| [04:16] <desertc> Thanks for your advice, bryce! | |
| [04:16] <bryce> sure, let me know if you dig up interesting data! | |
| [04:22] <desertc> I was leaving glxgears running, and I was surprised what happens when GNASH starts up in Firefox. Brings the FPS down from 5000+ FPS to 14-15 FPS. Yikes. They have some work to do there. | |
| [04:23] <desertc> Anyway, is glxgears available and usable for all graphic chipsets, do you think? | |
| [04:24] <desertc> And would it be a good indicator of 2D and / or 3D performance ? | |
| [04:25] <bryce> glxgears is usable for all chipsets | |
| [04:25] <desertc> thanks again! | |
| [04:25] <bryce> I don't think it's at all a good indicator of 3d performance | |
| [04:25] <bryce> use a game instead | |
| [04:26] <bryce> or, even better, use glxgears, plus 2 games to give several data points per card | |
| [04:26] <desertc> hmm - would have to find a game that is part of the ubuntu repository that is small enough for people not to be bothered by getting it | |
| [04:26] <bryce> each card and driver is going to vary in performance a lot depending on the workload | |
| [04:26] <desertc> not even sure what consists of "3D graphics" in games... hmm... isn't my screen 2D? ;) | |
| [04:27] <desertc> I do like your idea of using two games and glxgears, however. | |
| [04:27] <bryce> 3d as in, games that utilize the 3d chip on the graphics card | |
| [04:28] <desertc> Can you think up any way to determine this is happening, easily? Any way to tell what games in Universe are "3D" ? | |
| [04:29] <bryce> most first person shooters are... quake, doom, tremulous, probably others | |
| [04:29] <desertc> Hmm - I guess I can search Synaptic for "3D" .. heh heh .. that worked pretty well, actually. | |
| [05:01] <ubotu> New bug: #190615 in xorg (main) "Sticking Keys" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/190615 | |
| [05:28] <desertc> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=994&num=1 | |
| [05:28] <desertc> This test suite from Phoronix looks like it will be helpful. | |
| [05:28] <desertc> Coincidently announced on Thursday.... :-} | |
| [05:52] <bryce_> oh cool | |
| [05:57] <desertc> Would be nice if he gave us some open source code to put into the Hardinfo benchmark package in Ubuntu | |
| [05:58] <desertc> I will inquire with him about doing it. | |
| [05:58] <bryce_> yeah | |
| [05:59] <desertc> though -- I suspect he simply uses games and other pre-compiled packages... worth a shot anyway | |
| [06:29] <desertc> Finding any benchmarks is tough! Any games would have to be configured to a specific video settings for everyone, and this setting is dependent on the monitors. Generally people say glxgears is CPU bound, not GPU bound, and professional benchmark programs are either closed source or just for WinXP | |
| === imbrandon_ is now known as imbrandon | |
| [11:01] <ubotu> New bug: #144732 in linux-restricted-modules-2.6.24 (restricted) "cannot resume from suspend with nvidia-glx-new and compiz" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/144732 | |
| [12:18] <ubotu> New bug: #190623 in xserver-xorg-video-intel (main) "The restart after updates caused Ubuntu 8.04 Alpha4 to have fuzy vertical lines all over the screen." [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/190623 | |
| [17:25] <ubotu> New bug: #190724 in xserver-xorg-video-i810 (main) "good" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/190724 | |
| [21:31] <ubotu> New bug: #190771 in xorg (main) "some keyboard layouts interferring" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/190771 | |
| [23:03] <ubotu> New bug: #190788 in xorg (main) "ubuntu doesn't respond to mouse in most opened applications" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/190788 | |