Linux - SoftwareThis forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Hi,
I've recently installed Quake 4 and Doom 3 on my linux box. First I installed Doom 3 and noticed that the recommended setting for my graphics card was Low Quality. Which I though was kinda weird but I didn't notice a tremendous difference in gameplay. Then I installed Quake 4 which I previously had installed on Windows and I definitely noticed as huge difference in quality. The graphics on Linux are horrible compared to Windows. My graphics card is an ATI X700 PCI-E. Could it be that ATI supports Direct X better than OpenGL? Any ideas if I can find a little fix?
I have an ATI card in my laptop. My games that use Direct3D works beautifully but OpenGL works like crap with low frame rates. My only guess is that ATI has poor support with OpenGL games for linux. That is why I use the windows dual boot to play doom3, call of duty, etc. I heard that nvidia cards has better support for linux than ATI. I am stuck with ATI anyways cause it's integrated to the motherboard. If someone proves me wrong about ATI and Nvidia , please point it out.
Hi,
I've recently installed Quake 4 and Doom 3 on my linux box. First I installed Doom 3 and noticed that the recommended setting for my graphics card was Low Quality. Which I though was kinda weird but I didn't notice a tremendous difference in gameplay. Then I installed Quake 4 which I previously had installed on Windows and I definitely noticed as huge difference in quality. The graphics on Linux are horrible compared to Windows. My graphics card is an ATI X700 PCI-E. Could it be that ATI supports Direct X better than OpenGL? Any ideas if I can find a little fix?
Huh? What does Direct X have to do with anything. Doom 3 uses GL on Windows, Mac and Linux.
ATI cards have horrible performance in Linux because of bad support for modules (drivers).
OpenGL requires a CAD/workstation like card. It needs a very high memory bandwidth, a lot of video memory, and a very fast GPU/VPU. DirectX rarely overloads video cards because it is the CPU that is restricting the performance of the card.
I suggest buy a nVidia graphics card with the above features. Though a multi-processor system will help too when playing games in Linux.
ATI cards have horrible performance in Linux because of bad support for modules (drivers).
OpenGL requires a CAD/workstation like card. It needs a very high memory bandwidth, a lot of video memory, and a very fast GPU/VPU. DirectX rarely overloads video cards because it is the CPU that is restricting the performance of the card.
I suggest buy a nVidia graphics card with the above features. Though a multi-processor system will help too when playing games in Linux.
No, OpenGL doesn't require a CAD/workstation like card or high memory bandwidth. Where you get your information is beyond me.
It's just a driver issue. It just so happens that nVidia's Linux drivers are a lot better. Having a Geforce 6xxx or 7xxxx or 8xxx gaming card will do nicely. You don't need that Quadro junk for gaming.
Both ATI's and nVidia's drivers on Windows are well matured so you very good performance there. However, even on Windows, ATI's GL performance is subpar and buggy. They have removed plenty of bugs at least
I would agree it's a driver issue because both of those games absolutely rock on my Linux box with my nVidia card.. I see no visual or performance difference between those games on windows or Linux.
you DO have the proprietary ATI drivers installed right ?
AMD/ATI graphics have made an announcement to release new graphics drivers for Linux (and open source community in general). In their article, they mention better graphics support for Doom/Quake games.
No, OpenGL doesn't require a CAD/workstation like card or high memory bandwidth. Where you get your information is beyond me.
It's just a driver issue. It just so happens that nVidia's Linux drivers are a lot better. Having a Geforce 6xxx or 7xxxx or 8xxx gaming card will do nicely. You don't need that Quadro junk for gaming.
Both ATI's and nVidia's drivers on Windows are well matured so you very good performance there. However, even on Windows, ATI's GL performance is subpar and buggy. They have removed plenty of bugs at least
No, you do not have to get a Quadro, but the card does need a very high memory bandwidth, a very fast GPU/VPU, and large video memory. I have a GeForceFX 5700 Ultra with 128 MB of video RAM and I have to leave it on at low for Unreal Tournament 2004 even at the lowest resolutions. OpenGL is very video card dependent unlike DirectX. It is best to go for the very high end of the GeForce6, GeForce7, and GeForce8 series instead going for the best bang for the buck for rendering OpenGL.
Not even the most efficient module (driver) can render OpenGL quickly. Software can only go so far.
No, you do not have to get a Quadro, but the card does need a very high memory bandwidth, a very fast GPU/VPU, and large video memory. I have a GeForceFX 5700 Ultra with 128 MB of video RAM and I have to leave it on at low for Unreal Tournament 2004 even at the lowest resolutions. OpenGL is very video card dependent unlike DirectX. It is best to go for the very high end of the GeForce6, GeForce7, and GeForce8 series instead going for the best bang for the buck for rendering OpenGL.
Not even the most efficient module (driver) can render OpenGL quickly. Software can only go so far.
GL and D3D are an interface to a hw. They are called Application Programming Interface.
It is very much video card dependent because on Windows and Linux, the entirety of the GL specification is coded by the IHV.
nVidia does a better job than ATI.
Even the way a game is programmed can have an effect as you have seen with Unreal Tournament.
Anyway, every person has some opinion. I've seen all sorts of claims, including your high memory bandwidth requirement theory.
GL and D3D are an interface to a hw. They are called Application Programming Interface.
It is very much video card dependent because on Windows and Linux, the entirety of the GL specification is coded by the IHV.
nVidia does a better job than ATI.
Even the way a game is programmed can have an effect as you have seen with Unreal Tournament.
Anyway, every person has some opinion. I've seen all sorts of claims, including your high memory bandwidth requirement theory.
I did not just say memory bandwidth. Read my previous posts carefully.
ATI has bad software engineers. ATI did have very good hardware engineers. I do not recommend ATI to anybody because their software is not reliable and not stable. The open-source community provides better support for ATI products. Unfortunately, open-source projects have to reverse engineer the software which can literally take forever.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
