[NTLUG:Discuss] Re: pci-e and linux ( and radeon -vs- nvidia )

[Bryan J. Smith]

On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 07:48, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
> Find me a PCI-Express Ti 4x00 and I will take a look.

On PCIe, there is no need.  You have the excellent 6200, 6600 and
6600GT.  They _wipe_ both the FX5xxx and GF4Ti series.

Just don't go PCX5xxx (PCIe FX5xxx).

> Though I have a 6600GT in one system since it does component output
> for HDTV resolutions, and I am quite happy with that.

The 6600GT is the fastest "native" PCIe card from nVidia.

For the 6800 on PCIe, an AGP-to-PCIe bridge is used which adds cost
($50+).

> Honestly, I dont think you will push any of the cards much with Linux
> unless you are using Doom 3, and for that, I would really say the
> 6600GT is a minimum.

It depends on what you do.  But from a gaming standpoint, yes.

I _never_ said go GF4Ti instead of 6000 series.  I said go GF4Ti
_instead_ of FX5200, 5500 or, possible even, FX5700"LE".

See my post because this is almost an AGP v. PCIe issue because nVidia
won't release the 6200 and has yet to release the 6600 for AGP.  They
don't want to mess with their "cash cow" of FX5200/5500 sales, because
consumers don't know they suck.

> Actually, the 9200 is supported, as it was based on the 8500 chipset,
> though the 8500 actually performs better.

Yes, they are all the R200 series.  The last time I checked, the VR280
(9200) wasn't supported yet.  I'm glad to hear that's changed.

> Still, for PCI-Express you have the x300 x600

Which are not much different than R300.

> x700 or if you are really lucky you might find an x8x0 card.

And those are R400 series.

> That puts you in their binary drivers though, good luck with those.

Yep, anything R300 or higher will _never_ have DRI.  ATI withholds the
specs.

> From a linux support standpoint, I would check on any of those.  ATI's
> binary drivers are spotty at best, and not released nearly as often.  If
> you want 64bit support, you are screwed at the moment.

Yep.

-- 
Bryan J. Smith                                    b.j.smith at ieee.org 
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Subtotal Cost of Ownership (SCO) for Windows being less than Linux
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) assumes experts for the former, costly
retraining for the latter, omitted "software assurance" costs in 
compatible desktop OS/apps for the former, no free/legacy reuse for
latter, and no basic security, patch or downtime comparison at all.