[GLLUG] Linux Accelerated Graphics

[Marr]

On Saturday 16 October 2010 23:33:15 Chick Tower wrote:
> I'm getting ready to put together a new PC.  I'm not looking to make a
> gaming machine, but I would like to be able to play Quake 3 Team Arena
> and Unreal Tournament.  I'll almost certainly get a motherboard with the
> graphics hardware included on it.
> 
> If I recall correctly, it used to be that nVidia graphic cards worked
> better than ATI cards when running Linux.  Is that still the case, or
> are they pretty much the same now?  I know it used to be easy to install
> the nVidia drivers; are ATI's as easy to install?  Thanks for any
> information you can give me.

I'm a bit surprised that nobody has commented on this (at least publicly). I'd 
also be interested to hear some opinions and experiences.

I've never had an ATI card/chipset myself, so I didn't feel qualified to reply. 
However, in the interest of stimulating some response to this thread, let me 
say that I've used Via (integrated) and nVidia (both discrete graphics cards 
and integrated) hardware under Linux and I've been happy with both (more so 
with nVidia, though). I've been especially fond of nVidia's X11/Linux 
documentation in the form of their detailed 'README' file covering things like 
multi-head use (etc) that has always come with their Linux driver download in 
the past and still does.

Like you, I've considered the nVidia driver install to be easy, assuming 
people don't have a problem with exiting X11 and running the nVidia 
installation script as 'root' from console mode, as suggested by nVidia.

In fact, on my last install of the proprietary nVidia driver, it's been made 
slightly simpler. The installation script no longer asks about using a 
precompiled interface (because there are none included now, per the release 
notes) and it doesn't ask if you want to find one on the Internet.  Basically, 
after running the '.run' (shell script) file from a bare console and after 
accepting the license, it just launches into building the interface 
automatically. (Of course, it's expecting to find the source code of the 
running kernel, but I always have that installed.) There was some automatic 
searching for conflicting X11 files and IIRC it asked me if it could update the 
X11 settings, and I let it. It worked flawlessly.

To be specific, in case it helps, the motherboard using the nVidia proprietary 
driver is a Foxconn M61PMV with nVidia 'GeForce 6100' video (specifically, 
GeForce 6150SE, nForce 430). It's a really low-end (essentially obsolete) 
motherboard ($43 at NewEgg, Aug 2010) not intended for gaming, but it works 
very well with the proprietary nVidia driver (version 256.44). I haven't 
really tried any games on it, but I suspect that it might not do too badly on 
older games like Unreal Tournament at reasonably lower resolutions (i.e. not 
the 1600x1200 native resolution of my LCD monitor!).

Unlike my last motherboard (Asus A7V400-MX using Via Unichrome graphics 
[KM400A chipset]), this Foxconn/nVidia one comes out of sleep mode (ACPI 'STR' 
['Suspend-To-RAM']/'S3') flawlessly so far whereas the Asus/Via board would 
occasionally (somewhat rarely, actually -- maybe once a month) refuse to come 
out of sleep mode at all and even for all the times it did resume properly, it 
always required a quick but ugly kludge (swap to a virtual console [Ctl-Alt-
F2] running as 'root', issue 'mode3 259' command 'in the blind' to reset the 
video, then switch back to X11 [Alt-F7]) to get the video working again).

Sorry I can't provide any comparison for ATI hardware, drivers, and 
installation. I've considered buying ATI hardware at some point too, so I'm 
hoping to hear more from others.

Hope this helps, at least a bit....

Regards,
Bill Marr