Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8500gt benched under linux

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 29, 2007 7:29:09 AM

The nvidia 8500gt has been reviewed at phoronix on ubuntu with Linux 100.14.03 drivers (BETA). Its get beaten by nvidia 6600gt but it outperformed ATI's Radeon X1950PRO. To bad they didnt test it under Enemy Territory.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=695&...

More about : 8500gt benched linux

a b U Graphics card
a b 5 Linux
April 29, 2007 8:11:46 AM

Lol, it beat the x1950 pro in 2 benchies. Nvidia does well in those games I guess, since there is no way a 6600gt should beat it and and x1950 pro cant.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
April 29, 2007 8:56:50 AM

Nah, it's LINUX that's why.

Phoronix is the main Linux gaming site and this is a standard thing for them, but compare the results to gaming under Windows and DX and many of those games are terrible compared to the 'natural' habitat.

I'm not anti-linux, nor anti-linux-gaming, it's just that that marketplace is as small and insignificant as the MAC gamer.

Linux is for game servers, not gaming rigs.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
a b 5 Linux
April 29, 2007 10:41:55 AM

Fair enough.
April 29, 2007 4:14:30 PM

the reason why the 8500gt beated the ati its because of drivers, in linux ati drivers are really badddd.
a c 110 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
April 29, 2007 5:00:38 PM

In general Nvidia cards do better in OpenGL so et would have been a win for Nvidia in ET.

It is hard not to buy an Nvidia card just for ET(slap it in the other pci-e slot, or get a 8800gts 320).
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
April 29, 2007 6:10:37 PM

Quote:
the reason why the 8500gt beated the ati its because of drivers, in linux ati drivers are really badddd.


As bad as S3's? As bad as SIS's? what about intel? What about Matrox?
I've used all but SIS's and I'll say despite the stabiamdlity of Matrox and intel for basic desktop, none of them can keep up with ATi/ let alone nV, but of the rest I'd say intel does the best job and is a close 3rd and improving alot. nV is out front, but ATi is improving although slowly and AMD has said they will focus more effort on that market, and while it may or may not ever catch or beat nV, I don't know if that's necessary so much as to get good solid drivers, which should be the goal. The problem is that it's still an insignificant chunk of the gaming market, the main thing is for stable desktop and 2D/Video acceleration. And if you consider what nV's Vista drivers were like, should they not have improved there, but had 'top notch linux gaming drivers' then really what sense would that make?

It's still to small a part of the gaming universe, and none of the new games launch on Linux, nor is there much money in Linux gaming. So regardless of AMD's new focus/dedication I doubt they'd ever dedicate as much effort to linux gaming in a single quarter as they do to either win 2K/XP or Vista.
April 29, 2007 7:32:18 PM

Quote:
but compare the results to gaming under Windows and DX and many of those games are terrible compared to the 'natural' habitat.

I've got to admit you're right when it comes to those poor Ati+Linux users - roughly 50% fps of Windows.

But not if you have an nVidia card. nVidia's Linux drivers get same fps as their Windows drivers. So don't blame it on Linux - it's Ati who needs to fix their drivers.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
April 29, 2007 8:06:03 PM

Quote:

But not if you have an nVidia card. nVidia's Linux drivers get same fps as their Windows drivers. So don't blame it on Linux - it's Ati who needs to fix their drivers.


Only in older games lafter alot of optimization. Traditional launch of Linux versions, which are already delayed, are slower, and take alot of time to get up to speed. Some like UT2K & Doom/Quake have large dedicated Windows OGL community that helps make the transition easier, but it's still slow, and not equal at start.
a b U Graphics card
April 29, 2007 8:13:56 PM

Quote:
I'm not anti-linux, nor anti-linux-gaming, it's just that that marketplace is as small and insignificant as the MAC gamer.

:lol: 
April 30, 2007 4:31:35 PM

Quote:
Only in older games lafter alot of optimization.

But "after alot of optimization" is normal. Don't they optimize the Windows version as much as they can?

Quote:
Traditional launch of Linux versions, which are already delayed, are slower, and take alot of time to get up to speed.

If Linux were so inadequate then the Linux ports would never get up to speed with slow slow Linux holding them back. But they do get up to speed...
April 30, 2007 5:19:04 PM

Interestingly, under Linux you have 2 approaches;
- you release the driver's code, and it ends up integrated the best it can with Mesa (Intel, Matrox), usually with good support and fair performance, but once you get a dedicated code maintainer compatibility and efficiency increase very rapidly (Intel's driver is getting real good, it's the hardware that sucks);
- you release a binary driver, and you have to maintain it yourself (Nvidia, Ati, Sis)
Nvidia has, since the beginning, chosen a simple approach: do the best OpenGL driver they can, make it run under as many professional platforms as they can, and make it pretty much identical under all platforms. In fact, Windows is the only OS for which they have to drastically change their habits: they need to make DirectX drivers.
The results: their proprietary drivers are updated very often for Linux (x86 and x86-64) and boast excellent support (OpenGL 2.1, AIGLX, GL_EXT_texture_from_pixmap, shader-optimized video overlay emulation to texture, Xorg ABI 1.0, SLI, Gf8x00...) due to one simple thing: the Linux driver is in fact a driver for X11, which is used by many many MANY workstations - develop for X, save on development on all Unices.

On the other hand, Ati has always had a VERY bad support for OpenGL; as such, their current OpenGL Linux driver aims to do only one thing: accelerate Doom 3 (still no Xorg ABI 1.0 compatibility, no AIGLX, no multiple screen, spotty hardware support, no GL_EXT_texture_from_pixmap support, and only simple hardware planar overlay).

Right now, if you want to play under Linux, it's either:
- Intel hardware: best driver support and excellent features, but lousy hardware,
- Nvidia hardware: best performance and excellent driver but not free - lacks some features Free drivers enjoy.

Only owners of older Ati hardware (9500 to X800) get a better deal: Free driver with excellent integration and better performance than Intel hardware. It's still light years away from Nvidia's top performance though.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
April 30, 2007 8:21:18 PM

Quote:

But "after alot of optimization" is normal. Don't they optimize the Windows version as much as they can?


Actually they don't because it's more important to get the title out there and make money. The same concern isn't there in Linux, and as you can see by the attitude towards Ati's drivers , "good" isn't good enough for most linux users, despite their own choices.

There's a difference between what they spend time optimizing too, by the time it reaches the Linux stage it's down to hardware issues more than the touchy feely crap like plot issues, dynamics or AI.

Quote:

If Linux were so inadequate then the Linux ports would never get up to speed with slow slow Linux holding them back.


You're missing the point, obviously, that it's not Linux itself that is at fault, it's the lack of any type of resources that windows has thrown at optimizing it. You think I'm anti-linux obviously by your comments, but what you miss is that's it's simple facts of the industry, that if a windows bug came up that made the hud pink and fuscia in their old windows version versus a critical core bug in the recently launched linux version, which do you think would get the attention? It's just the way it is.

Quote:
But they do get up to speed...


Sometimes.
April 30, 2007 9:25:56 PM

Quote:
Interestingly, under Linux you have 2 approaches;
- you release the driver's code, and it ends up integrated the best it can with Mesa (Intel, Matrox), usually with good support and fair performance, but once you get a dedicated code maintainer compatibility and efficiency increase very rapidly (Intel's driver is getting real good, it's the hardware that sucks);
- you release a binary driver, and you have to maintain it yourself (Nvidia, Ati, Sis)


There is a third method. That is to release the specs, so that the current projects working on getting open nvidia and ati drivers out know how to access the gpu and memory. But no one seems willing to even let how to talk to the gpu and memory out.
May 1, 2007 7:48:34 AM

Letting the specs out: that's why I didn't mention it. Only Ati did it for their r100/r200 chips, but they had been reverse engineered almost completely by then.
Intel did it, and they maintain their drivers directly in the Mesa tree. As a result, said drivers work out of the Xorg package, full speed, with all bells and whistles. If Intel hardware didn't suck as much, they'd be ideal.

The day Intel releases graphics cards with the same politics, they'll get the whole BSD/Linux market in one fell swoop. OK, it's not that big a market anyway.
By then, maybe Nvidia will change their mind and release the specs for at least their older cards - the NV4x are now almost completely reverse engineered, and a working driver should be out by this fall for pretty much all their chips - see the Nouveau project.
After all, they did it with their Ethernet driver (they now support the reverse engineered one)...
!