Geforce Video Cards
 

There's been a lot negative things being said and happening w/ Geforce video. Linus Tolvadas has said negatives about Geforce. Plus, it seems like a fair amount of people are having trouble with the Geforce video found in some lap-tops.

I have found that my Geforce card has a bug and doesn't run a 2 monitor set-up correctly.

So should Geforce video be avoided. Should one make sure that a new lap-top purchase does not have a nVideo/Geforce working in it?? If that is the case what is the best or better video card or set-up??

I dont know, but my GT520 doesnt work right. Its like its keeping up with the video, but when people speak, their mouths appear slow.

Nvidia cards are fine. Linus Torvalds rant about Nvidia was not about their drivers or hardware, but about their unwillingness to participate in the open source space, especially when it comes to develop open drivers. Nvidia does not support open source developers at all for their desktop and notebook chips (they do support open source on their Tegra embedded platform recently), so the free drivers currently available, reenginered because no documentation available, have some problems with different newer cards (older cards work well), like some GTX5xx series cards.
The problems with laptops are from a different kind, the problematic laptops are those with the Optimus technology, which contain a low power Intel video solution and a more performant Nvidia chip. Switching between these chips is currently not supported by Nvidia. There exists an open project (named Bumblebee) to provide that function, but it doesn't work always reliably and can be a real pain to configure.

So, if you go for a desktop video card and using a proprietary driver is not a problem for you then Nvidia is just fine, their proprietary drivers are of high quality. If you don't want to use a proprietary solution then it depends on your use case which video card is recommended. If you aren't a gamer I would go for Intel's integrated video, or maybe AMD's APUs, otherwise a mid-range AMD Radeon card would be a good choice, the high-end cards are currently poorly supported by the free drivers.

My personal opinion: I have no problem with proprietary drivers and I am a gamer, so currently I have a mid-range Radeon card (HD6870), but due to some problems I have with AMD (poor hardware support for older hardware, poor marketing, poor driver quality, slow driver development, ...) my next video card will definitely be a Nvidia card.

Thanks TobiSGD,

For getting back w/ very pertinent information. I heard of the Bumblebee programming, mostly negative comments about it being hard to deploy correctly.

You seem to have some practical insight. At the moment I'm trying to purchase a laptop. I was thinking of getting an i7, but there's a few of those that use Geforce, 630 M seems to be the most common. Because I do some video editing (and watch netflix streaming) I have to use a dual boot. Grub has always worked for me and I'll probably use Ubuntu 12.04 lts.

If you have any feedback that might help me get the best laptop for a dual boot - I would obviously really appreciate any advice or insight.

I personally do not have experience with Optimus technology, Cascade9 is a much better source of information on that, maybe he sees this post, but you also may want to read this thread: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...at-4175436559/
It starts as a thread about replacing a desktop machine, but later on the OP decides to replace his laptop and most posts are on the topic you are searching information on.

My personal opinion: If you don't need much 3D power (you are not a gamer nor doing CAD or other types of creating 3D content) then avoid switchable graphics, the Intel GPU will be good enough.

Really? What model card do you have?

Bumblebee works in most cases, but there is always some risk (you cant be sure that it will work until you've tried it out). Its a lot more of a sodaround to get working right, even then its nowhere near as good with linux as it is with windows.....

Most of the i7 laptops will have some nVidia or AMD GPU. When you are getting $300+ CPUs the manufacturer sees adding a $15 GPU as being very valuable for marketing, and the cost is so small it has very little impact. Fine for win users, a pain for many linux users.

IMO i7 laptops in the UK are a bad idea. For the cost of a decent i7 laptop you can get a cheap light and protable laptop + a powerful desktop.....

Member Response
 

Hi,

Yes, Optimus can be difficult for some users, especially users that have limited experience. Setting up Bumblebee is doable by using the packaged builds for some users. Not everyone can use Optimus cleanly.

cascade9 does have valid points. Do some investigating before investing or changing your video.

Personally, I have setup Bumblebee on my Dell XPS L702 with Optimus. Easy setup for me, some tweaking but I use optirun for specific apps not generally. Very satisfied with the setup after some font & desktop tweaks.

Look at: #79 which is for Slackware but you can garnish information here & https://github.com/jgeboski/Bumblebe.../master/README

Plus: http://linux-hybrid-graphics.blogspo...d-release.html should provide additional Nvidia optimus links for other GNU/Linux.

HTH!

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...at-4175436559/

That has been mentioned. I came away thinking the only usable dual graphics atm was amd/amd/amd, and of course their cpus are not marvellously usable. I found some A10-4600M/HD7660 based APUs in laptop models, but in Europe they're like the Higgs Boson - in theory it exists, but nobody has ever seen one - at least in the screen size I wanted. Often they have a HD7970 as well. AMD at least have some basic support in linux for their dual graphics.

The one interesting thing not explored in that thread was how well Wayland can/will do with dual graphics. OTOH, one can apparently middle finger one GPU in /sys by powering it off. Then you're left with it as ballast until the software catches up - which will be some time. X server developers are scratching themselves and saying "Yeah, we'll have to do something about this." I for one cannot imagine a standard being developed that accommodates all the dusl graphics laptops out there (Intel/intel/amd; intel/intel/nvidia; amd/amd/amd).

Despite all the bad things being said about nivida (myself included), some of which are true, they are still the best damn cards with the best damn drivers on Linux. So, in conclusion, I would buy one, and I have bought many.

Again thanks for all the reply/info-

Here in Chicago some i7s can be obtained for 620 and 700 usd. Some are much more expensive 1500 to 2000 usd. I was looking at the low end models - mostly just to have what is considered 'state of the art'. But are they?? I don't really know!! There's a quit a lot of them that come w/ a nVidia/Geforce 630 m. From what I've read one would have to use bumblebee w/ that set-up.

The nVidia card I'm using in a desktop is a Geforce 7600, it's an older card and runs well in Linux, unless you ask it to do a dual monitor set-up. There's really no 'full screen' on either monitor. However if running just one monitor the full screen is fine. I read that's there is a bug, in this card on Linux, so I don't try to use a dual monitors when on Linux. Without the dual monitor set-up, the card does full screen (therefore on a single monitor).

I'm going to check all the links out. I'll see if I have an intelligent (or otherwise) questions to post.

Maybe i7s are not worth the money!?? Since I don't buy lap-tops a lot - I though a decent i7, should last me 5 or 6 years (anyway that's my reasoning).

What are you planning to use it for ?

The AMD CPUs are just as usable as Intel CPUs.

AMD/AMD, AMD/nVidia (very, very rare to impossible to find now) Intel/AMD and Intel/nVidia _should_ work in most cases...just they are totally pointless for you business_kid.

If you arent going to play games, paying extra for a GPU is pointless, cuase more power sucking and takes some risk for zero payoff.

Its the screen size and location that was the problem.

BTW, 'dual graphics' is a term best avoided now, AMD has used that for the APU (GPU on a CPU) + GPU 'hybrid crossifre' setups.

http://www.amd.com/us/products/techn...raphics.aspx#4

Its probably better to use 'hybrid grpahics' or 'switchable grpahics' (even if techniccally switchable graphics is last decades tech).

AMD 'dual graphics' does have at last some support from the closed (fglrx) drivers. How well they work I dont know, and its something still best avoided IMO.

Wayland? LOL. Maybe in a few years it will be usable, now its not.

Even if it was usable, with wayland currently you can only use FOSS drivers (nouveau, radeon) which have much poorer performance and worst for yet laptops, power saving issues.

You get what you pay for in general.

If you get a 'low end' model, its not going to be 'state of the art'. Sure, you can find a i7 for cheap....a $700 i7 will have pretty much the same RAM, HDDs, chipset etc as a $450-500 i3.

The big difference between a $500 i3 and a$700 i7 is the i3 is a dual core, i7 (QM versions) are quad core. IMO its not worth paying 50% more for a couple of cores. If you do decide to get an i7 latpop be careful, some i7 mobile CPUs are dual core.

Unless you are gaming (with modern games), or using your laptop for huge amounts of media watching I wouldnt get an 'optimus' laptop. If you are gaming with modern games, you'll want a faster GPU than the GT630M.

7600s should run dual monitors just fine with linux. I wouldnt mind seeing whatever you read saying there is a bug with the 7600s and dual monitors.

My search is over; I've bought. But I am merely expressing an opinion. I wasn't going to get Intel/Nvidia, or Intel/AMD because these companies are competitors. The windows systems offer clever handling between gpus and power saving. If linux is ever going to get close, there will need to be cooperation between competitors:-/.

cascade9,

I don't remember where I read that about the Geforce 7600 having a bug w/ dual monitors. But the dual monitor feature doesn't work. It sort of works - it goes into something like full screen but it's not full. Anyway, if I just run one monitor it goes into a real full screen. Hmm - I probably said all that!!

I've been trying to figure out the i7's. Some are 1.5 or 1.7 gigahertz - others are 2.4 or 2.6 so I imagine there's a difference and a i3 running at 2.4 might out perform the quad core. I'm looking for enough power to do both audio editing and recording, plus run video editing and FX.

Sound more like a monitor problem then an issue with the card or drivers.

IMO trying to figure out how fast/powerful a CPU is from MHz alone is misleading.

i3-3110M- dual core, 2.4GHz, no turbo boost, 3MB l3 cache.
i7-3630QM- quad core, 2.4GHz/3.4GHz turbo boost, 6MB L3 cache.

Even if they run the same MHz, the larger cache on the i7 will help in some situations. Due to turboboost, the '2.4GHz' i7 will actually run a single core process at 3.4GHz, so its faster than the i3 all round.

The lower MHz i7s are 'low power' versions and are mostly dual core.

Audio recording and editing doesnt take much CPU power. However you will be limited by the onboard sound card unless you want to buy an external USB sound card, which is quite expensive for decent models.

Video editing can use a lot of CPU power, depending on what you want to do. Video FX can take _huge_ amounts of CPU power, depending on what you want to do. Both will use a lot of RAM in most situations.

The problem with using laptops for these kinds of tasks is that laptops arent made to run at full CPU laod for long periods. Thjey also tend to have slower HDDs. The desktop CPUs have more power, RAM is cheaper, you've got more options for HDDs/SDs, and with a desktop you can install a nice sound card for recording as well.

Are you sure you dont want a desktop instead?