LinuxQuestions.org
Support LQ: Use code LQ3 and save $3 on Domain Registration
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 06-08-2012, 04:11 AM   #31
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Distribution: OpenBSD, DragonFly BSD
Posts: 1,414

Rep: Reputation: Disabled

Quote:
Originally Posted by replica9000 View Post
Same here, I started with AMD from the DX, and up to the Phenom II X4. Used Matrox for my GPUs until they stopped consumer cards, then switched to ATI. Since AMD bought ATI, seems like AMD isn't doing so well. My last 3 GPUs have been nVidia, and for the first time since my Pentium 233mhz, I bought an Intel i7. I'm done buying AMDs GPUs, thought I may still buy their CPUs in the future.
I was thinking of a new system a few months ago and AMD was my first choice for a CPU. After looking into it somewhat, AMD CPU's seem to have drastically fallen behind intel's Core series. Some of their recent products, like the bulldozer core have been a flop. Prices are also not as competitive as they were, value for money, which was always one of AMD's main selling points is not where it was a few years ago, so based on this and their approach to Linux support, my next (theoretical) system would probably be an intel/nvidia one unless things change in a big way.
 
Click here to see the post LQ members have rated as the most helpful post in this thread.
Old 07-09-2012, 06:44 AM   #32
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,718

Rep: Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904
I've got to give you points, Tobi. You've had the thead up for a while, and I've only seen one real 'anti-AMD GPU' comment since (and that was reasonable in its own way). Most people who've had a bit of rant like to be more biased than that.

As for video support on linux, we are really down to 3 choices- AMD/ATI, nVidia and Intel.

AMD/ATI- not bad support really, though dropping 'legacy' closed driver support is annoying. At least they have released some documentation. XvBA is fairly lame. The actual GPU hardware is good. IMO AMD/ATI have always had driver issues, even on windows.

nVidia- not bad support agian, provided you dont want open source drivers. Face it, nVidia doesnt care about or even like nouveau, and the old open soruce (but obfuscated) .nv drivers are dropped. No release of documentation. VDPAU is the best of the hardware video decoding methods. The actual GPU hardware is good. nVidia has generally had good quality drivers.

Intel- support is all over the place. Mostly decent, though sometimes horrible. Some documentaion released. VAAPI is almost pointless on Intel vdieo chips, even the newest versions. The actual video hardware is a best lackluster. Generally OK drivers.

So we've got the choice between a two GPU companies (AMD/ATI and nVidia), oen that it open soruce friendly but has driver issues, the other open source unfriendly but has less driver issues. There is also one greedy pig (intel). OK, before anyone gets bothered by 'greedy pig', how much intrest did intel have in video before 3DFX started charging $300 for voodoo accelerator cards? Virtually none.

So we have the choice of Curly, Moe or Larry.

Though there is also matrox. Last I saw a G550 was still over $100.....which is far too much for a slightly updated video chip from 1999. If Parhelia hadnt 'failed' matrox might have a more current GPU out, but since that failed matrox has pretty much pulled back and let AMD/ATI, nVidia and intel get even more market share. Its a pity, really, as matrox had great image quality. Comon, matrox, make some basic GPU hardware which is 'primitave' enought that you can release full documentation without worring that some other manufacturer wont extroplate and 'steal' the tech serects from the soruce code. Keep some of the chips to sell in matrox branded cards (eg more expensive than others, but known good quality) and sell some chips to the other big manufacturers to gain a bit more market share.

Quote:
Originally Posted by caravel View Post
I was thinking of a new system a few months ago and AMD was my first choice for a CPU. After looking into it somewhat, AMD CPU's seem to have drastically fallen behind intel's Core series. Some of their recent products, like the bulldozer core have been a flop. Prices are also not as competitive as they were, value for money, which was always one of AMD's main selling points is not where it was a few years ago, so based on this and their approach to Linux support, my next (theoretical) system would probably be an intel/nvidia one unless things change in a big way.
You know whats almost funny? When AMD bought out ATI then rebranded ATI to AMD, I said at the time that it could be a bad move- problems with the AMD GPUs could bleed over to affet the AMD CPU 'brand'.

AMD hasn't had the performance crown for a while. From late P3 up to Core2Duo, AMD was in front or even with intel. It was an amazing run....due to the way the industry reacted, and some thanks to 'dirty tricks' intel kept its majority market share. If AMD had of got up to 40-50% of market share in betwen 2002-2008 they migh have had a chance to keep up with intel. At %10-20, not a chance. Intel has more fabs, more engineers, more conenctions in industry, its the 800lb gorilla in the X86 room.

Bulldozer isnt that bad. People were expecting some i7 sandy bridge beating monster, and that didnt happen (and IMO couldnt happen). But in its price range, its OK.

Prices are as comptitive as AMD can make them, really. Intel is pushing hard to lower AMDs market share as much as possible, and they would love to knock AMD out of the market, if only so they can push prices back up to where intel wants them. IMO that wouldnt help intel long term, as high prices will just speed up the move to ARM based CPUs that is already starting.

While you arent the only one to bring it up caravel, you had the most complete and interesing post so I used yours.

Last edited by cascade9; 07-09-2012 at 06:49 AM.
 
Old 07-09-2012, 07:55 AM   #33
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,653
Blog Entries: 2

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097
I should have updated this thread, but I forgot it. It seems that after the outcry in the community for dropping "legacy" hardware (it is clear that this is not legacy hardware, the HD4000 line is still the top of the line integrated GPU for chipsets for Bulldozer CPUs) AMD realized what they have done and started a legacy driver line. Not long ago they released a beta for their 12.6 Legacy driver which works with kernels up to 3.4 and X.Org server 1.12 (back to Slackware -current on my "legacy" laptop). This driver also lacks the serious bug the mainline 64 bit 12.6 driver has. But it is not very likely that this driver will ever get updates to run on newer kernels or X.Org versions.

From my opinion, the problems that AMD has are not cause by bad hardware. All their products run pretty fine for me.
It is that they have made some serious mistakes in their marketing and their release policy. At first, dropping the support for legacy cards with 12.6 was a really bad move, if they simply had waited with this til 12.6 was released and all cards had support for newer kernels and X.Org the negative press wouldn't have been so much. Now they not only dropped support for older cards but also changed the release model for their drivers, in order to achieve higher quality drivers (and of course to save money). This is normally a good thing, they released beta drivers to the public, so that people can test the drivers and find bugs. Many people accepted this and reported bugs, between them one serious bug (not really a bug but an insane programming failure) that made the driver for many debian (and derivatives) users unusable. Instead of fixing this bug they decided to release the driver anyways. Hell, Debian is a niche distro anyways, used by only a few people, so we don't have to care. That seems at least to be what they were thinking.
After they had already such a negative press about their drivers they decided to release a buggy driver after switching to a development model that should improve quality. Yeah, they seem to have some masterminds in their marketing department.
May be the same masterminds that decided that it is totally good to market the AMD FX8000 series as the worlds first real 8-core desktop CPU. Besides the fact that they aren't real 8-cores and can't compete with the only competitors 4-core CPUs. So now we have AMD 8-cores that can't compete with Intel 4-cores. Brilliant. If they had marketed them as quad cores with extended SMT then we would have AMD 4-cores that are not as performant as Intel's 4-cores. Sounds totally better to me than 8-cores that can't compete with 4-cores.

But anyways, after Nvidia has lost a multi-million dollar deal in China due to not having the willingness to port their drivers to the MIPS architecture (or release open drivers) and since AMD got the deal, I hope that both companies now realized that Linux users are not second class anymore and that the linux market will be very important for them in the future, with fast growing markets in Asia.
We can all only hope that this will give us better drivers (open and proprietary).

P.S.: If you want to try the 12.6 Legacy beta, AMD somehow thought it would be a good idea to reward their beta testers. With an annoying watermark on the screen. Another good decision from them: Hey, they do the testing for us, let's annoy them.
Anyways, if you want to get rid of the watermark launch this command:
Code:
echo -n d164ca3e4bda6f7683e01cdf18df15c3:e94afc067af75f4fb2d12eeb79f225fae351fa0608f72e22cac029ed28ed21f7:b45dfe5f2db95f40b4817ae82db921a5b356ae0f79bf0a14b4d97aed2aea73a2b457ff0f2dbb5f40b3d87ae82aba27f1b205a90e79e30a12b1d879bb2aee73f4 > /etc/ati/signature
Thanks to Kano, developer of the Kanotix distribution for that.
It is also possible to activate support for hardware decoding of H264 Level 5.1 material, but this may still be buggy, so do it on your own risk:
Code:
amdconfig --set-pcs-u32=MCIL,HWUVD_H264Level51Support,1
Rather funny that one has to activate this manually because one of the reasons for dropping driver support for the "legacy" hardware was feature-completeness.
 
Old 07-09-2012, 10:42 AM   #34
guyonearth
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Distribution: SolydX
Posts: 399

Rep: Reputation: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve R. View Post
I sometimes wonder if Microsoft and/or Apple may secretly discourage hardware manufactures from writing Linux drivers. Time-Warner, for example, made a deal with Blockbuster where Blockbuster would "hold" a new release for about a month so that Time-Warner could advertise how they had movies that were not yet available at Blockbuster. Deceptive advertising. Warner Brothers Will Make Netflix, Redbox, Blockbuster Wait Longer for New Movies
Why would they have to? Linux has a fairly tiny desktop user base, and putting people to work writing full-function drivers for perhaps a few dozen users who happen to have a particular printer doesn't make economic sense...not to mention the fact that Linux is constantly changing and there are hundreds of distros in use, so testing and compatibility are a nightmare. Windows and MacOS have consistent hardware interfaces and APIs, Linux doesn't. You're simply never going to have the kind of support that Windows or Mac will. Threatening "not to buy it" is not really the answer, there aren't enough potential lost sales to matter.
 
Old 07-09-2012, 10:56 AM   #35
guyonearth
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Distribution: SolydX
Posts: 399

Rep: Reputation: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by caravel View Post
I was thinking of a new system a few months ago and AMD was my first choice for a CPU. After looking into it somewhat, AMD CPU's seem to have drastically fallen behind intel's Core series. Some of their recent products, like the bulldozer core have been a flop. Prices are also not as competitive as they were, value for money, which was always one of AMD's main selling points is not where it was a few years ago, so based on this and their approach to Linux support, my next (theoretical) system would probably be an intel/nvidia one unless things change in a big way.
Not competitive? They are more than competitive. You'd better hope AMD never fails, or your beloved Intel processors will double in price. There's no reason to keep prices down when there's no competition.

Newegg prices:

AMD FX-4170 Zambezi 4.2GHz (4.3GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 125W Quad-Core Desktop Processor FD4170FRGUBOX $139

Intel Core i7-3770S Ivy Bridge 3.1GHz (3.9GHz Turbo) LGA 1155 65W Quad-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 4000 BX80637I73770S $319

-----

AMD FX-8150 Zambezi 3.6GHz Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core Desktop Processor FD8150FRGUBOX $199

Intel Core i7-3930K Sandy Bridge-E 3.2GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) LGA 2011 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor BX80619i73930K $569
 
Old 07-09-2012, 11:17 AM   #36
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,653
Blog Entries: 2

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyonearth View Post
AMD FX-4170 Zambezi 4.2GHz (4.3GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 125W Quad-Core Desktop Processor FD4170FRGUBOX $139

Intel Core i7-3770S Ivy Bridge 3.1GHz (3.9GHz Turbo) LGA 1155 65W Quad-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 4000 BX80637I73770S $319

-----

AMD FX-8150 Zambezi 3.6GHz Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core Desktop Processor FD8150FRGUBOX $199

Intel Core i7-3930K Sandy Bridge-E 3.2GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) LGA 2011 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor BX80619i73930K $569
Now not only compare prices, but also benchmarks. The Intel CPUs you have chosen run circles around the AMDs.
 
Old 07-09-2012, 11:42 AM   #37
replica9000
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: Quahog, Rhode Island
Distribution: Debian 'Sid', FreeBSD, Android
Posts: 703
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 127Reputation: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
Now not only compare prices, but also benchmarks. The Intel CPUs you have chosen run circles around the AMDs.
What are we talking about here? Intel has about 40% more average performance for about 300% the price? I'm not saying Intel chips aren't work the higher price tag, but they can be a bit overpriced. I've heard Intel likes to make a 60% profit on their products. This is why Intel is leaving the SSD market, too many competitors to keep the high price tags for their profits.

Last edited by replica9000; 07-09-2012 at 12:49 PM. Reason: spelling.
 
Old 07-09-2012, 12:36 PM   #38
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,653
Blog Entries: 2

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097Reputation: 4097
Yes, Intel can be a bit overpriced, but it was always the case that more performance means exponentially more Dollars. If you want to compare the price/performance ratio of CPUs you usually don't take one expensive high-end CPU and compare it with a cheaper mid-range CPU from another vendor, you take two CPUs in the same price range and compare the performance. So let's compare this on a real basis.
We take two CPUs from AMD and two CPUs from Intel and comapre them:

Let's go for the 100€ line first, we can take the AMD FX4100 for that and the Intel Core i3 2100.
As we can see here, gaming performance is basically the same, sometimes the AMD is a little bit slower: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...mark,3136.html
This site ranks the the FX4100 a bit higher than the i3 2100: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_look...4100+Quad-Core

I conclude, in this price region there is no advantage for any of the competitors when it comes to price/performance. There is a marketing advantage for Intel, nonetheless, their dual-core CPU is as fast as AMD's CPU, that is marketed as quad-core (but we know better).

Now let us take the 200€ line, we take the AMD FX8150 and the Intel Core i5-2500K or the i5-3550. Now lets search for Benchmarks:
The Passmark benchmark seems to run better again on the AMD hardware: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_look...50+%40+3.30GHz
This benchmark shows a more balanced picture: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/artic...-Review/1402/1

So again, no real difference in price/performance, but again a marketing advantage for Intel, their 4-cores are as fast as AMD's 8-core.

So the my conclusion is: The previous image of AMD having a better price/performance ratio is nowadays not true anymore, when it comes to marketed-cores/performance ratio Intel is 100% better (which basically can only mean AMD's marketing sucks) and when it comes to the absolute top performance it is a fact that Intel is unbeatable, of course for higher prices.

Last edited by TobiSGD; 07-09-2012 at 12:39 PM.
 
Old 07-09-2012, 01:27 PM   #39
replica9000
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: Quahog, Rhode Island
Distribution: Debian 'Sid', FreeBSD, Android
Posts: 703
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 127Reputation: 127
Bulldozer is marketed as an 8-core, but it's similar to Intel's i7 with multi-threading. Basically integer cores sharing FPU cores. It's just the way each chip does this is different. AMD with Clustered Multi-Threading, and Intel with Simultaneous Multi-Threading. The operating system will see both chips as 8-core processors. It's just bad for AMD when people see their "8-core" can't keep up with Intel's "4-core".

Most of the comparisons I see from both brands aren't usually based on price at first, but usually flagship vs flagship, which Intel is way ahead on, both in performance and power consumption. Just comes down to what are people willing to pay when it comes to price vs performance.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ATI (AMD) vs Nvidia Proprietary Linux Graphics Drivers: what is the current state? spudgunner Linux - Hardware 11 06-05-2012 04:27 AM
ATi/AMD Proprietary FGLRX driver? "additional drivers" CrazyGuy158 Linux Mint 4 02-24-2012 12:21 PM
LXer: AMD stops maintaining proprietary Linux drivers for older graphics hardware LXer Syndicated Linux News 1 03-10-2009 04:37 PM
Ati 64bit proprietary drivers crash linux slantoflight Linux - Hardware 7 07-30-2006 04:34 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:15 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration