Slashdot Mirror
NVIDIA Performance On Linux, Solaris, & Vista
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.""
I've wondered this a while. What is the difference between the gaming cards and the workstation cards from Nvidia and ATI? Do they just have better DACs? Certified driver support for business apps? Or is the GPU itself somehow?
Alex
I am surprised by this as I would have thought Nvidia would have put more effort into their Vista driver with Linux drivers being mostly on the back burner. I am assuming it is because their Linux driver is old code (which we all know contains less bugs then new code) whereas the Vista driver is written from scratch?
Either way I think this shows the awesomeness of Ubuntu and Linux. ^_^
Vista has a new driver architecture and it is goiing to take some time for MS to improve the graphic subsystem performance. It will also take NVidia a while to optimise their code for Vista.
Even then, the Vista architecture might just have some inherent issues that are hard to code around.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
While I tend to agree with you, it would be stupid on the part of MS to hobble openGL because it will only make Windows look sucky. The news for nerds crowd on the Internet (not just /.) will ensure that *ANY* Linux drivers get vicarious face time with the masses and hobbling that experience is like a huge marketing blunder on the scale of the Sony rootkit without so much of the legal problems.
One thing that I like, recently it is not a case of Linux and Solaris having to be as good as MS, but a case of hmmm lets just see which performs better without the a priori conclusion that everyone has to keep up with MS.
I think that very soon, if not now, we can start thinking of MS as an angel with a tarnished halo, if I can put it so gently?
We are slowly moving in to an era of REAL competition, where all OSs are competing for the leading edge and the masses waiting for news each quarter of who is winning rather than everyone not really caring since no other OS is as good as MS. At that point, I think you can clearly and safely declare a win for F/OSS. A battle win if not the war.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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
Its an OpenGL test. The perf. difference between OpenGL and DirectX Nvidia implementations has always very large -- even in Windows XP.
I read Slashdot every day, and until this moment I had never even heard of PCLinuxOS. I had to look it up.
Ubuntu, however... Ubuntu, my parents have heard of.
Don't know what metric Distrowatch uses, but it seems to be flawed.
Granted, I don't use Linux as a day-to-day OS, but I have some Linux apps I like which I run via Ubuntu in VMware Fusion. As a casual user, of the distros I've tried, Ubuntu wins hands-down. It's still too hard to set up for my parents, say, but not so hard that I don't just say "fsck it" and delete the partition, as I have done with all the others.
There's definitely a different between say, 30 and 100 fps: http://100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
This space for rent.
I have it on good authority that the next Windows Driver Model will run Crysis on 3 SLI 8800GTs and render it in 8-bit color at 640x480 resolution at over 50 FPS! So take that you Linux/Unix hippy beatnik freaks!
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
No, you've just accidentally switched to Firefox on Slashdot.
Wait a few moments, the cognitive dissonance will pass and you'll be up and trolling like a champ again.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
You think? I remember and have followed a similar kind of scenario, it started over 30 years ago when I was younger. It went something like this: GM was the Biggest of the Big. Had a market share greater than all other automobile manufactures combined. Had revenues higher than the GNP of 90% of the worlds nations. etc. etc. etc. They developed this Business Model called "Planned Product Obsolescence". (Your vehicle was planned to be scrap in about 10 years or before.)
There was also another little automobile manufacturer called Toyota with a very small market share, they made crappy little vehicles, used to be called "piss pots". They had a Business Model called "Continuous Improvement". There was a historic event in 2007 that went quietly unnoticed, Toyota surpassed GM in world market share and revenues.
You argument is flawed. You're arguing because windows is better known it will always
have the largest market share. The same could have been said about IBM pcs, or lotus 1-2-3,
Borland's compiler suite, or wordstar word processor.
The fact of the matter that next winner has to start out small because it gets to grab
marketshare. Google is an excellent counterexample to your argument. They were just 2-3 people
in 1998 working on a master's thesis project when Yahoo and AOL were the big thing. And where
is AOL now? How much marketshare does Yahoo have for search engines?
Personally I think that Dell selling preinstalled Linux boxes in the U.S. was the first toll
of the death bell for Microsoft. Then walmart selling out the green PCs was the next tolling of
the bell, and now that Asus is selling Eepc laptops I think is the first nail in the coffin for Microsoft.
Will Microsoft die overnight? No. Will they go out with a bang? No. I think they will go out with
a whimper within the next 5 years unless they somehow manage to reverse their course like they
did in 1995 and embrace the fact that GPL software is here to stay and start using it.
I have to call BS on that. If I have to choose between the latest versions of Open Office and Microsoft Office, I will take M$'s closed solution hands down. The interface on 2007 is vastly improved over other office offerings out there. Making something free and open source does not make it good. I can think of many free applications that don't make the grade in cleanness and usability when compared to commercial offerings.
These are the same people who when asked what kind of computer they have answer with "black". Also, not many people can associate the maker of the softare they use with the actual software application. You ask them which browser they use and they will say "I don't know. I just click on the blue 'e'." despite the fact that the title bar says "Internet Explorer" 100% of the time the application is open. So I hope you don't expect them to know Microsoft created it if they don't even know its name.
As far as marketing capabilities, I hardly ever see a Microsoft commercial. When I do they don't ever specify any particular product in the commercial. How does that really sell Windows or Office? All the marketing seems to happen behind the scenes from the point of view of the end consumer using deals that happen between OEMs and Microsoft salespeople.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
I'm as much for open source as the next guy, but for the love of all that is holy, what are you talking about? If marketing can be open sourced, how will it work? "Someone will innovate and figure that problem out"?
Square pegs don't fit every type of hole. No matter how much we sit around and think about it, no "innovation" will make it fit. We can make some sort of hack and call it a square peg fitting in a round hole, but it isn't really.
The difference between programming and marketing is that marketing isn't about standing on the shoulders of others. Giving away your previous work isn't going to help your successor market to any significant effect.
They have invented "open-source" marketing in the sense of hacks, like viral marketing, that aren't really open source but sort of a vague gesture in that direction, but don't expect traditional marketing to be going anywhere.
*I think I just hemorrhage about 5 mod points indirectly with this post at a poor attempt at humor
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
man woman Story of my life
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Microsoft has been reporting 15% growth in revenues the U.S., 20 to 30% growth abroad each quarter. [emphasis added]
Amazingly enough, Microsoft has been known to lie about some things. I suggest you review the fine print on those "reports", and then ponder why, if Microsoft's growth is really as reported, their stock hasn't been doing as well as it historically used to. Their cash reserves are also shrinking. Then there are the legal battles they're fighting.
That is the picture of a company on the way down.
-- Alastair
The Quadro boards allow OpenGL stereoscopic images to be displayed in a window, and the non-Quadro boards do not. If you want really good 3D, you need a Quadro.
I use them for my stereoscopic video stuff with either a pair of shutter glasses or 3D HMD goggles, and can do a live, 3D viewfinder to compose the scene, align cameras, etc.
I lol'ed the first time I need to check my security log, and typed `less secure'.
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."