Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NVIDIA Performance On Linux, Solaris, & Vista

Posted by kdawson on from the in-that-order dept.

AtomBOB suggests a Phoronix review comparing the performance of a Quadro graphics card on Windows Vista Ultimate, Solaris Express Developer, and Ubuntu Linux. The graphics card used was a NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700 mid-range workstation part. The cross-platform benchmark used was SPECViewPerf 9.0 from SPEC. Quoting Phoronix: "Using the Quadro FX1700 512MB and the latest display drivers, Windows Vista wasn't the decisive winner, but the loser... Ubuntu 8.04 Alpha 5 with the 169.12 driver had overall produced the fastest results within SPECViewPerf. In only three benchmarks had Solaris Express Developer 1/08 outpaced Ubuntu Linux, but with two of these tests the results were almost identical.""

9 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What is the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The difference between the Quadros and the consumer cards used to come down to hardware OpenGL overlay support, if I remember right.

  2. Re:What is the difference? by sxeraverx · · Score: 5, Informative

    They have different priorities. Gaming cards try to keep the framerate up by degrading image (not showing every single texture, e.g.), if need be, while cards for stuff like CAD and the like lower the framerate to show every detail requested of them.

  3. Re:OpenGL? by glob · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.opengl.org/pipeline/article/vol003_9/

    "Some have suggested that OpenGL performance on Windows Vista is poor compared to Windows XP. This is not the case."

    --
    nostrils
  4. Re:Surprised.. by recoiledsnake · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's mostly FUD. See here (read all three parts)

    --
    This space for rent.
  5. Re:ws cards by andersbergh · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's definitely a different between say, 30 and 100 fps: http://100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

  6. Re:the difference does not matter. by recoiledsnake · · Score: 4, Informative

    What's significant here is that Windows has lost it's graphics crown. DRM and bloat or industry defection for the same reasons, we all know the root cause. Free software is simply cleaner and works better. If the ability to run DirectX 9 under Wine was not enough to move gamers to Linux, this is. Things can only go downhill for Microsoft now. Free drivers will be even cleaner and the performance gap will widen. From TFA:

    Then in September, we had looked at NVIDIA's multi-GPU performance under Linux and Windows when running two GeForce 8600GT 256MB graphics cards in SLI (Scalable Link Interface). Windows XP and the ForceWare driver had outpaced Linux in every gaming test we conducted. The drivers have a lot more influence than you give it credit for.
    --
    This space for rent.
  7. Re:Headline is misleading! by kc8apf · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's interesting. Considering that I am a developer for the CHUD Tool (no quotes) and I do performance analysis and benchmarking for a living, I don't think they did anything wrong. Things that aren't running on a system rarely affect run-time performance. Going from a distribution like Ubuntu to Debian just removes a bunch of things from disk, but those things have zero impact on the metric being measured. For Vista, it might make a difference if the version used was shown to have less idle activity, but in practice, you want to compare what a typical user would be running. So, since the OSs chosen reflect typical users, the data is perfectly valid for a comparison between them. If you want absolute performance numbers, then you need to start tuning the OSs before you run the tests. Things like disabling daemons or services and unplugging network cables can cause measurable differences in some benchmarks.

    As for the CHUD Tools, they are completely inert unless you happen to be running one of the tools and even then, it isn't likely to cause any significant difference. The kernel extensions used by the CHUD Tools are designed to do absolutely nothing until they are asked to. If you are running a Time Profile in Shark, it will have some impact, but it will be limited to 1-2%.

    --
    kc8apf
  8. Re:What is the difference? by alex4u2nv · · Score: 5, Informative

    I had the very same question, and this article from Nvidia turned out to be very enlightening.
    Quadro vs FX -- http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro_geforce.html

    According to the article, there are some major differences between the two architectures. Where features are programmed either at the hardware layer (quadro), or at the driver layer.

    --
    -Alex. http://bit.ly/1iVPtfA
  9. Re:What is the difference? by LoRdTAW · · Score: 4, Informative

    Gaming cards try to keep the framerate up by degrading image (not showing every single texture, e.g.), if need be

    Thats called culling and it is implemented in software, not hardware.

    If I remember correctly there was a simple hack posted on Toms Hardware a while back for converting a Radeon to a FireGL. You simply solder an SMT resistor to a certain trace on the chip package and it pulls a line low. That line actually signals the BIOS to report the card as a Radeon or a FireGL. So in essence the Radeon and FireGL are the EXACT SAME CARD! The only difference is the FireGL drivers look for a Radeon reporting itself as a FireGL. This keeps production simple and even the video card BIOS versions the same.

    The FireGL and Quattro cards come with optimized drivers for specific 3D programs like AutoCAD, Maya, 3DSMax, Light Wave etc. There is a drop down box that lets you select the program your using and it loads the finely tuned driver for that program.