Hello,

I'd like to discuss modern/current graphics cards and their utility on the Linux platform.

I had been given the impression that Nvidia didn't support Linux in the same way Intel did and therefore Linux users ultimately couldn't utilize NVIDIA cards to the full extent as they would on a Windows machine. Again, this is simply what I had understood up to this point. From what I've seen online, this has been due to drivers?

I realize there are a multitude of use-cases and distinct user "requirements" that such utility can be subject to but I am mainly considering a general use-case or general-use of a machine. Today that would mean browsing the web and probably streaming a lot of Netflix or YouTube.

With that in mind, is it correct for me to assume Intel is better supported in Linux than NVIDIA and should expect different performance from them?

Note:
I don't intend to start a debate on which company is better than the other just because of gaming. I personally use NVIDIA because it's top of the line and because my primary PC is a Windows desktop which I game on (sue me).

UPDATE:
What I don't seem to understand is why NVIDIA isn't given the limelight in the Linux community. Is is simply because of proprietary drivers vs open-source drivers? To what end does that impact the performance perceived on similar, distinct cards on the same build compared to Windows?

For example:
Is the performance of a GTX 1050 going to differ on a modern (circa 2018) desktop running Windows 10 vs a desktop running Ubuntu? I realize that the answer to that question is not an easy one for many reasons but let's take gaming out of the equation. My basis for starting this discussions was due to gaming but later I found out it's simply because the games themselves aren't provisioned for Linux. To me, that signifies an issue unrelated to the graphics cards. What I'm trying to understand is why NVIDIA is perceived as worse on Linux? Is it is ethics? Is it verified claims of not performing up-to-par with Intel? What is it that makes NVIDIA so damn detestable that even Linus doesn't hesitate to curse at the company?

No.

Most Linux game developers target NVidia first. That, by definition, means NVidia is better supported.

The only way that Intel is "better supported" is that it doesn't expect you to install proprietary binary drivers.

1 members found this post helpful.

The first line seems to only apply to gamers. So, a gamer would say that Nvidia is better supported for Linux because their GAMING is supported.

The second line, if I understood it correctly, is that Intel generally works more easily out of the box (without considering gaming-use).

Depending on how you look at it, wouldn't it depend on what you want out of your PC?

You understood it correctly.

I think you missed the real difference, though. Nvidia drivers are proprietary and you are at their mercy. Their reputation is fairly good and their support seems fairly good. However, the fact remains that you are at their mercy. To use their cards you have to jump through some hoops, their hoops. Intel, on the other hand, uses (or can use) open source drivers. In most cases that means they are already available in your distribution or else readily available in your distribution's repositories. You have to do virtually nothing to use them.

So now you get into the crux of the matter: the debate between proprietary and open source. You also get into the question of which is better for your use and why. Both of those are little more than your opinion and can be debated until Hell freezes over. How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?

I would re-ask my question being specific about which card(s), intended use, etc. so users of each can answer specific questions with hopefully more facts and fewer opinions.

2 members found this post helpful.

Intel graphics generally work out of the box, because Intel's support of Linux is excellent.

NVidia graphics generally work after some headaches, for the reasons cited by agillator.

I agree and I've updated my initial post to address this. It's all a mess in my head at the moment.

The answer is actually - it depends. There are open source drivers for intel, but as far as I know you get no real rendering performance out of them. So if you want to do something that requires a bit of graphical performance I would not recommend intel - that is stuff with hardware acceleration. I think that even fancy desktops like compiz are also nogo with Intel (used to be, do not know if it has changed by now). After that question, the selection is only between ATI or Nvidia.

Years ago I had a laptop with ATI, it did not get "that" old before the proprietary ATI drivers stopped supporting it. After that I have always gone for Nvidia hardware on my desktop or laptop, you name it, and it has never happened that my hardware was not supported by the drivers anymore. So, yes, you need to use proprietary drivers from Nvidia, so what - it is mainly against some fundamental linux principal, but I personally does not mind. The nvidia proprietary drivers work in my opinion just as flawlessly with Linux as with Windows. I can not comment on current state of ATI as I had never any need to recheck.

For what definition of "support"?

Linux users tend to prefer sticking to FOSS software as much as possible if not exclusively. NVidia policy makes that difficult if not impossible. Some find the two putatively competent FOSS drivers, modesetting and nouveau, work acceptably for doing work with a computer. Intel pays people to write the FOSS drivers. NVidia not only doesn't do that, it refuses to release hardware specifications that would facilitate FOSS developers to write good drivers, forcing them to reverse engineer.

I like to factor in support of the environment. CPU + discrete GPU, on average at least, one would think has to burn more dead dinosaurs or corn or coal or whatever is creating the electricity that runs the machine. CPU + discrete GPU tends to mean also more heat generated. Overabundant waste heat is something most parts of the planet probably want to avoid, to reduce ice melting habitat destruction, sea level rise and so forth. Finally, heat is an enemy of long product life, so the less generated, the better. I cringe whenever I see a gfxcard that ships with more than one fan, especially when it's priced higher than a CPU with integrated GPU.

When I'm buying, I choose a motherboard with at least one 16X PCIe slot plus at least two onboard video ports. For the past 8 years, these have run Intel CPUs exclusively, and of late, they have DisplayPort, HDMI, DVI and VGA ports onboard. None of my boards with PCIe slots have them populated with an NVidia GPU less than 8 years old, and I never even consider using NVidia's drivers even if the device's proprietary driver support hasn't already been terminated. This it not materially because of the ecology as much as it is because of NVidia policy.

Not to be too pedantic about it, but it depends on how you define "support". For any proprietary, closed source driver, it's not linux that supports the proprietary driver, but the company that produces the proprietary driver that supports linux. You are relying entirely on that company to supply you with their closed source driver that works on linux. The linux kernel devs have nothing to do with that driver other than providing a kernel api which allows the company to produce a closed source driver that can interface with the kernel. As things change in the kernel over time, it's up to the company to keep up with those changes and modify their driver. The burden is not on the kernel devs to make sure closed source drivers continue to work on the new kernel.

For open source drivers that are included in the kernel, the burden is on the kernel devs to make sure the included drivers work now and continue to work in the future as the kernel develops over time. These are the drivers that linux "supports". Your question is confusing because it seems to ignore this distinction.

Given that Linus once told NVidia to go <blank> themselves in the middle of a guest speaking gig, I believe the answer to your question may well be yes.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050, Linux or Intel HD graphics 4000? Weird question. The Nvidia GTX 1050 and the Intel HD 4000 are GPUs while Linux either a kernel or short for one of many GNU/Linux distributions. There’s not much in common.

If you want performance in gaming and have $150 the GTX 1050 is what you want. However note that Nvidia is not software freedom friendly. You will not have very good open source drivers. In Linux Nvidia cards perform well with the closed source driver but poorly with the open source driver. Also the closed source driver may crash your OS. On Windows Nvidia cards perform very well.

If you want a free as in software freedom operating system than GNU/Linux is for you. I don’t know how you compare with GPUs but that’s what you get. However GNU/Linux is not Windows. You will have to learn.

If you’re not interesting in gaming, just want to play old games, want a low powered solution or you care about driver software freedom than Intel HD 4000 graphics is for you. However this GPU perform poorly when compared with a GTX 1050.

Why not include an AMD RX 560? The RX 560 has more or less the same performance of the GTX 1060 and the open source drivers are very good. AMD cards work very well on Linux. However Nvidia closed source drivers perform better. Like Nvidia cards AMD cards perform very well on Windows.

i think some (newer) intel hardware also requires (or at least works better with) firmware.
in my layman understanding, firmware means closed source?

Firmware can be fully open source. A LOT of drivers, even fully open source ones, require firmware. Most every wifi driver there is requires it, it's just that some make it open source (Intel and the other major open source that is eluding me) while others do not (Broadcom *shudders*).

As to the original topic, not being a gamer myself, I'll take Intel every time. Modern intel chips can do hardware acceleration of 4k video, 3d effects, etc. They're perfectly usable as long as the most graphically intensive games you want to play is candy crush. They're open source and work out of the box perfectly as long as the kernel you're using has a new enough version of the drivers for the IGP that you have. Nvidia open source drivers aren't BAD. The performance and compatibility is light years ahead of what it was 5 years ago, but it's still not perfect. The closed source drivers mostly work, but if you have too new a system with too old a card, then you run into issues of not being able to load a driver that works with your card because it's too old. I got tired of it so everything I buy now uses IGP (Intel or AMD). Modern AMD cards are the best of both worlds, fully open source (does require firmware also open source) and has great performance since AMD actually developed them instead of reverse engineering. This is, of course, only true for the last few generations of cards, before that, the drivers are garbage, utter and complete garbage.

1 members found this post helpful.