Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

On Linux, $550 Radeon R9 Fury Competes With $200~350 NVIDIA GPUs

Posted by timothy on from the right-gas-for-the-engine dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Earlier this month AMD released the air-cooled Radeon R9 Fury graphics card with Fury X-like performance, but the big caveat is the bold performance is only to be found on Windows. Testing the R9 Fury X on Linux revealed the Catalyst driver delivers devastatingly low performance for this graphics card. With OpenGL Linux games, the R9 Fury performed between the speed of a GeForce GTX 960 and 970, with the GTX 960 retailing for around $200 while the GTX 970 is $350. The only workloads where the AMD R9 Fury performed as expected under Linux was the Unigine Valley tech demo and OpenCL compute tests. There also is not any open-source driver support yet for the AMD R9 Fury.

83 comments

  1. New Graphics Card has no Linux Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    News at 10

    1. Re:New Graphics Card has no Linux Drivers by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

      New "ATI" card... Nvidia and Intel graphics are well supported on Linux. (Which was the point of the article)

    2. Re:New Graphics Card has no Linux Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'd watch that news, but windows 10 took away my media center.

    3. Re:New Graphics Card has no Linux Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, AMD/ATI has yet more hardware that typically performs very well but they can't deliver software/drivers that actually work.

      This is the fucking entire history of ATI. They make decent hardware but it fails to deliver because their software sucks ass. This is what you get with you let hardware engineers write software. They still don't get it, decades later. Hire some fucking software developers for once! Jesus Christ... The management at ATI must be some of the stupidest people on the planet.

    4. Re:New Graphics Card has no Linux Drivers by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 0

      Not always, I believe the STRIX cards needed a new driver or else they would get stuck in slow-mo mode as well.

      --
      Buck Feta. You know what to do.
    5. Re:New Graphics Card has no Linux Drivers by Xicor · · Score: 0

      no they arent. not only are the nvidia drivers generally shit on linux, but they also dont support SLI.

    6. Re:New Graphics Card has no Linux Drivers by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      I have been using them for over 10 years without a problem on dozens of systems with dozens of cards. Sounds like you may have some user issues.

    7. Re:New Graphics Card has no Linux Drivers by Xicor · · Score: 1

      you can USE them without much issue. but you cant actually USE THEM. you literally dont even have the option of turning on SLI while you have multiple monitors unless you are running a quadro.

  2. settled cannon for about a decade now by nimbius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    but the big caveat is the bold performance is only to be found on Windows.

    AMD does a great job of getting open source. They really work with devs to make sure we have all the stuff we need to craft the best driver we can. That having been said, they seem to only do this because the company doesnt take linux seriously enough to offer a functional blob driver. Running a newer AMD in linux for things like half life is utterly impossible, and not just for more advanced graphics tasks. seemingly trivial things like rendering a surface are beyond the grasp of the binary driver entirely in some cases.

    my question as a linux user is this: two years ago NVidia, after Linus flipped the bird, swore theyd make up for shortcomings in their open source driver. Has this manifested? does the linux open source driver for NVidia trumph the AMD open source radeon driver yet?

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:settled cannon for about a decade now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of me wonders if this is deliberate. No graphics drivers that are useful, no games. No games, no Linux desktop.

      What Linux needs is something like Apple's Metal, an API to help with performance.

    2. Re:settled cannon for about a decade now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vulcan is that. It will simplify the driver writing (at least in theory). The spec comes out soon and should change linux gaming as we will start getting parity with windows.

    3. Re:settled cannon for about a decade now by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 1

      Yeah why aren't they prioritizing that 1% Linux marketshare?

    4. Re:settled cannon for about a decade now by aliquis · · Score: 1

      my question as a linux user is this: two years ago NVidia, after Linus flipped the bird, swore theyd make up for shortcomings in their open source driver. Has this manifested? does the linux open source driver for NVidia trumph the AMD open source radeon driver yet?

      Seem like they support a later OpenGL version and more OpenGL features at least:
      http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...
      "Nouveau's NVC0 Gallium3D driver for GeForce GTX 400 "Fermi" GPUs and newer has all of OpenGL 4.0 and is even advertising OpenGL 4.1 compliance as shown by the screenshots I took with a GeForce GTX TITAN on Mesa Git this morning. The Intel i965 DRI driver just has a few extensions to enable for OpenGL 4.0 support as does the AMD Radeon R600/RadeonSI Gallium3D drivers. The Softpipe and LLVMpipe software rasterizers are much further behind and will probably be a number of months before these drivers handle OpenGL 4.0."

      As far as performance goes the support for Maxwell (the latest GPU generation) seem to be shit, older ones seem to be doing quite well with 15-70% or so of the performance of the close drivers:
      http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...
      http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...
      http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...

      For more recent AMD cards the open-source driver is even worse relative their catalyst driver than Noveau was vs Nvidias and I guess their catalyst driver isn't as good as the Nvidia one either so go figure:
      http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...

      Xonotic 0.8 1080p High:
      GTX 680 Nvidia driver: 269 FPS
      GTX 680 Noveau: 105 FPS.
      R9 285 Catalyst: 207 FPS
      R9 285 Mesa: 44 FPS
      GTX 750Ti Nvidia driver: 201 FPS
      GTX 750Ti Noveau: 19 FPS.

      So in that one I'd say the GTX 750Ti + Noveau is doing even worse than the R9 285 + Mesa one.

      R9 285 with Catalyst seem to be doing quite well there.

      But step back one generation and the Kepler GTX 680 owns them all.

    5. Re:settled cannon for about a decade now by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Part of me wonders if this is deliberate. No graphics drivers that are useful, no games. No games, no Linux desktop.

      Why? AMD has no stake or interest in what OS you game on, they're just looking to sell their hardware. They get no benefit from enabling or pushing a migration to Linux unless they can steal customers from nVidia/Intel that way, which seems highly unlikely. You don't need a conspiracy to explain why companies don't do things that don't benefit them.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:settled cannon for about a decade now by qubezz · · Score: 1

      "AMD does a great job of getting open source?" AMD is the one flipping the bird, they burned users of Radeon HD 4xxx and below in Linux. This hardware was shipping integrated in new desktops/laptops in 2011+, and they abandoned their driver by 2013, leaving something that will only run in old X, so basically useless in anything Ubuntu 12.04.1 or newer.

      It just takes one big FU like this for me to make sure everybody knows what AMD really thinks about Linux.

    7. Re:settled cannon for about a decade now by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Yeah why aren't they prioritizing that 1% Linux marketshare?

      You mean 11%, right? Android is Linux, and Nvidia makes Android graphics chips. (And CPUs) ATI does not. Hmmm...

    8. Re:settled cannon for about a decade now by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 2

      I didn't realize my smartphone had PCI-E slots.

    9. Re:settled cannon for about a decade now by unrtst · · Score: 1

      They get no benefit from enabling or pushing a migration to Linux unless they can steal customers from nVidia/Intel that way, which seems highly unlikely.

      I get the sentiment of this, but there are several scenarios where pushing people to Linux (and getting existing Linux users) would benefit them. First that comes to my mind is that users that build systems from scratch at home overlap quite a bit with Linux users, and most of those users go for best bang for the buck, which has traditionally been AMD. You can also get more enterprise-level features from AMD in consumer level cpus (ex. ECC memory support; ex. latest features (sata, usb3, etc) come to AMD motherboards first - at least traditionally). Take into account the cpu distribution in dell/hp/etc systems, which is almost all intel, and I think it makes sense to make sure their market share where they are strongest stays strong.
      As you implied though, there's plenty of reason to focus on the wintel market at all costs.

    10. Re:settled cannon for about a decade now by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      You probable do not know what is in your smart phone at all. http://www.nvidia.com/object/t... http://www.nvidia.com/object/t... Nor should you when it just works.

    11. Re:settled cannon for about a decade now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't realize logged-in users were so unafraid of showing themselves to be utterly stupid.

  3. Low bar set for devastation these days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

    1. Re:Low bar set for devastation these days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And bold. I mean, I can see calling the performance of the graphics card 'edgy' or 'in-your-face', but 'bold' is a bit much.

  4. Here's what I heard: by Narcocide · · Score: 2

    Linux+Nvidia is cheaper than Windows+anything.

    1. Re:Here's what I heard: by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It doesn't matter which is cheaper if Linux can only play a very small subset of the games. I certainly wouldn't spend $200+ on a video card and then limit myself in my game selection by refusing to spend an extra $100 on the OS.

      Personally, I've never actually been able to get Linux to run properly on arbitrary hardware that I happened to own. I'm sure you could put together a machine with specific hardware that is known to work well with Linux, but if you just pick random parts off the shelf based on performance needs, odds are you'll run into some difficulties trying to get everything working under Linux. That time spent researching whether or not the parts will actually work with Linux is easily worth the cost of buying a Windows license and just knowing that everything will work as expected.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re: Here's what I heard: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This might have been true in the early 2000s but I have yet to encounter hardware that doesn't work at all in the last six years.

    3. Re:Here's what I heard: by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      ... knowing that everything will work as expected.

      Enjoy that free Win10 upgrade. I hope nothing goes wrong...

    4. Re:Here's what I heard: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all you care about is gaming, get a gaming console.

      Linux is (mostly) free, so nobody bothers to write good drivers for consumer oriented devices. Linux is too good for "regular people" so it is artificially made bad so greedy monopolists can stay in business.

      Sure, there are volunteers who put a lot of work in the opensource drivers, but without cooperation from the GPU makers this process is a rather tedious one. And the GPU makers are keeping a tight lid on their proprietary tech, so as much as volunteers want to, they will never be able to match the performance of the proprietary drivers for OSes from wealthy monopolists.

      Not unless volunteers also develop an open source GPU, but that's a huge undertaking, designing the chip, the die, the manufacturing process and years of experience it takes to master it...

    5. Re:Here's what I heard: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It doesn't matter which is cheaper if Linux can only play a very small subset of the games."

      Times are changing.
      If you don't pay attention, you may miss what's happening.
      Currently, 22.5% of Steam's catalog works under Linux; 1346 games and those are not the 1346 crappiest Indie games either.
      There really are more than enough great games on Steam to justify buying a $200+ video card just for Linux gaming - I've done it and don't regret doing it.
      "Very small subset" simply no longer applies. Linux support for games is being added left and right.
      In fact, today we'll get another port by Feral.
      Probably either "Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor" or "Alien: Isolation".
      There's a whole bunch more great stuff coming up soon.
      And a couple of months from now the Steam Machines.

    6. Re: Here's what I heard: by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that the hardware doesn't work at all, but rather that it doesn't work as expected. This article is the perfect example. Sure the $550 Radeon card will work, but it won't work as one expects it to work. This has been the same in most of my experiences. There will be video drivers that work fine for the desktop, but as soon as you try to do something like a game, they either won't work or will run much slower than they would on Windows. I've also had problems getting certain wireless chipsets working in Linux.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    7. Re: Here's what I heard: by EmperorArthur · · Score: 2

      Wireless and graphics are the two pieces of hardware Linux has occasional problems with, and that's become much more of a rarity in the past several years.
      Many wireless chips require a non-free firmware package to be installed, so if you run a "pure" os like Debian, you'll have to manually tell it to do that.
      Older and Intel graphics cards just work. The issue has always been getting good performance out of newer ATI and Nvidia cards.

      Speaking as someone who uses Linux on my home machine, the most annoying part are peripherals like gaming mice and keyboards. Using all the buttons or changing settings is a pain in Linux. Companies like MadCatz and Razer just don't care. It will be interesting when people try to plug them into Steam machines and find they barely work

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
    8. Re: Here's what I heard: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully the steam OS, since it is being built for gaming, will have proper support for gaming peripherals.

    9. Re:Here's what I heard: by xenotransplant · · Score: 2

      Took less than an hour. Everything works wonderfully. I disabled all the telemetry and tracking/location garbage during install. Seems to boot a little slower than windows 7, but everything else is much faster. No driver issues, all my previously installed games and software all just work. Interesting.

    10. Re:Here's what I heard: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait for your first round of 'mandatory' updates and patches.

    11. Re:Here's what I heard: by xenotransplant · · Score: 1

      You mean the ones that installed last night without any issues?

    12. Re:Here's what I heard: by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I don't have a direct reference point, as I installed Windows 10 on a new machine, but personally my boot time is spectacular with Windows 10. From the time the BIOS beeps, to the time I see the login screen it's 10 seconds. It's also completely responsive from the time I hit the login screen. No lag at all upon log in.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    13. Re:Here's what I heard: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all you care about is gaming, get a gaming console.

      From whom? Sony removes features after release, and in general as a company behaves pretty scuzzily. Microsoft's not any better (especially with its ad-laden consoles). Nintendo has abandoned the core gamer demographic that the Playstation and Xbox cater to, especially during the last couple of generations.

      Linux is (mostly) free, so nobody bothers to write good drivers for consumer oriented devices. Linux is too good for "regular people" so it is artificially made bad so greedy monopolists can stay in business.

      That's just goofy. Windows is all most people know, and it's dead simple for normal uses. Linux is better than it was 15 years ago, and it's a great system for a technically-oriented user, but hardware companies don't need it to sell their hardware, so why take the extra effort to support it well? There's no need to imply an organized conspiracy when economics explains the situation perfectly well.

    14. Re:Here's what I heard: by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      IF time is free, sure.....

      --
      Good-bye
    15. Re:Here's what I heard: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but distortions such as this simply demonstrate a lack of reasoning on your part. see above for my dealings with Linux vs Windows: a Windows PC, built for Windows, supported for Windows, not supporting for Linux. Linux installs, boots, runs perfectly the first time.

      Windows took four days to get the same system into a usable state.

      Linux cost: time to install. About $75 at my old workplace (30 minute install).
      Windows cost: Time to install was almost 55 minutes. Time to find and install updates and drivers: approximately 32 hours.

      So, if your time is free Windows would be the one to go for, but - to use your own argument - if you really want to be productive straight up? Linux. I lost four days to setting up Windows. Four bloody days.

    16. Re:Here's what I heard: by strikethree · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter which is cheaper if Linux can only play a very small subset of the games. I certainly wouldn't spend $200+ on a video card and then limit myself in my game selection by refusing to spend an extra $100 on the OS.

      It is not about the money. I do have Windows 7 installed on a partition.

      I play games on Linux and it is a custom built computer with parts that were grabbed off the shelf without regards to Linux compatibility.

      I have a GTX980, a 28 inch 4k monitor, an i7 4770, etc. Not the most expensive but certainly not cheap.

      I still choose to play on Linux.

      Apparently, according to Steam I am less than .01% of all gamers out there, but I do exist.

      Why? I am tired of my devices doing things behind my back. Some devices give you the chance to control some of their nasty behavior if you hunt down the option, but all commercial software has behavior that I find reprehensible.

      It is funny that Ubuntu tries to follow along with that mess and that Redhat tries to do vendor lock-in. What a wasteland. Modern computing is just terrible.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    17. Re:Here's what I heard: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter which is cheaper if Linux can only play a very small subset of the games.

      Actually, about a third of the games I own now have an official linux port. And those are not just some indie games, but rather large ones, like Witcher 3, Metro: Last Light, all the Valve games, etc.

    18. Re:Here's what I heard: by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter which is cheaper if Linux can only play a very small subset of the games. I certainly wouldn't spend $200+ on a video card and then limit myself in my game selection by refusing to spend an extra $100 on the OS.

      Personally, I've never actually been able to get Linux to run properly on arbitrary hardware that I happened to own. I'm sure you could put together a machine with specific hardware that is known to work well with Linux, but if you just pick random parts off the shelf based on performance needs, odds are you'll run into some difficulties trying to get everything working under Linux.

      Counter-point: I just spent $500 on a graphics card, and my gaming system is single-boot Linux. Now to be fair, I do play quite a few games through WINE (though fewer than I used to), but the proportion of games which are Windows only and unplayable in WINE isn't as high as it used to be. I did get an Nvidia card (GTX 970) though, mainly because AMD's drivers have such a poor reputation under Linux.

      That time spent researching whether or not the parts will actually work with Linux is easily worth the cost of buying a Windows license and just knowing that everything will work as expected.

      There's plenty of hardware that doesn't work well under Windows too, either because of driver bugs or because the hardware itself has a design flaw (e.g. the GTX 970 memory architecture). Ultimately you need to do some research no matter what your OS is, if you're going to build the system from scratch. (And if not, the Steam machines are equivalent to a pre-built Windows system.)

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  5. Immature OpenGL, yet great for OpenCL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For OpenCL workloads it destroys thou... which brings me to wonder, how hard would it be to write an OpenCL based 3d renderer API...

  6. Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    New architecture requires driver work and optimizing. Linux doesn't have the driver team that windows does that is also working on catching up to Nvidia. When getting a Linux computer buy intel if it fast enough, AMD if you need faster and care about opensource, Nvidia for highest performance. Workstation for OpenCL AMD. Vulcan might change everything though.

  7. Radeon is total shit on Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have one of those Kabini 5350 APUs with the build in Radeon GPU and it is the slowest machine I have ever used, owing solely to the horrible performance of the Radeon graphics/drivers. On windows the thing moves along great for a 25W CPU, but on Linux, it is a total shitbag.

  8. Easy Fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    all you need to do is rename the binary to doom3.x86

    1. Re:Easy Fix by andreev · · Score: 0

      It appears that I'd also need to rename my distro. The latest Catalyst driver significantly reduced performance even on switching between windows ... not even kidding.

  9. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    AMD writes shitty half assed drivers

    I thought that was ATI.

    you are still sucking their dick

    Honestly, grow the fuck up you childish fucking idiot.

    Your id is too low for you to not actually be a fucking adult. Start acting like one.

  10. Re:Windows master race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah let me know how well Windows is doing with Azure, servers, security, customizability, phones..etc. Windows literally has two things, business and games. Business doesn't need Windows when everything is in the cloud and games are moving to cross platform at a drastic rate, being pushed by the largest unified platform out there and one of the most common engines. Windows master race...lol. Between Mac and gnu/linux, Windows is going to have a very tough time going forward as they don't currently offer a lot of value that isn't easily achievable by others. Fact is most users would easily be just as comfortable on a gnu/linux or Mac machine. I say this as a cross platform user. I use Windows, Mac, and gnu/linux on a daily basis. The lack of support says more about the graphics card makers being stupid and short sighted than it does about the underlying OS.

  11. Headline by GoJays · · Score: 1

    Simple English. The headline should read; "On Linux, $550 Radeon R9 Fury performance comparable With $200~350 NVIDIA GPUs".

    To imply it "competes" that means it is challenging it, or pushing it's limits. I guess you could say the 350 GPU's compete with the Radeon R9 Fury, but not the other way around as the R9 Fury is providing extremely low performance it is clearly not competing.

    /. has really gone downhill in the last year or two. It's sad.

  12. Holy cow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 0

    You wacky gamers ... a $550 video card?

    That's getting close to what I paid for the CPU, motherboard, and RAM in my 8-core 16GB machine.

    Of course, my video card was $40 because I don't need crazy graphics. :-P

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those would be 8 lousy AMD cores which probably cannot stand to an i5... seeing how the cheapest Intel 8 core chip is 650+$

      This GPU packs a serious punch, the poor 3D drivers aside, as an OpenCL compute device it is WELL WORTH the 550$.

    2. Re:Holy cow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Those would be 8 lousy AMD cores which probably cannot stand to an i5... seeing how the cheapest Intel 8 core chip is 650+$

      Yes, they're AMD, no, they're not "lousy". (And, I guess technically it's 4 cores with hyperthreading, I'm not sure)

      They are entirely adequate for my needs, are not called upon to run the most computationally intense stuff on the planet ... instead they provide my desktop with the ability to remain responsive while running 3 browser, 2 VMs, iTunes, the software for updating my GPS.

      There will always be people who truly do need the absolute most speed achievable by technology. You are probably one of them.

      But for many of us, we can achieve some pretty damned fine performance by doing this stuff with cheaper hardware. Most people for most tasks will never be truly CPU bound ... but when running multiple things concurrently, these "lousy" cores offer a really good boost for what we really need. Because it allows more apps to run concurrently on the same machine without competing for CPU directly.

      For me, those 'lousy' AMD 8 cores are a big pile of awesome. Because it means when I do run a long-running task which wants some CPU time, nothing else really notices.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also run sustained workloads, and I do it professionally. And while you can always buy more hardware, there is one precious resources that money CAN'T buy - and that's more time. Time goes by and it doesn't wait for nobody, and the performance of your hardware is what determines how much work will be completed in that limited period of time.

      In this regard Intel chips are well worth the extra cost. Don't get me wrong, I am not a great fan of Intel because of their long running anti-competitive practices, but they do have a tremendous advantage in terms of CPU performance. And if the workload can be parallelized - GPU computer is god-sent. I do all kinds of computationally heavy stuff, from GC rendering to multi-physics simulations, and that 550$ "expensive" GPU gives me orders of magnitude better performance, the limited amount of ram and lack of ECC aside, those 550$ give me the same performance I can get out of a 1100$ titan X... or a 4000$ quadro for that matter. So no, it is not very expensive by any means, and if you really NEED the performance, that price is a BARGAIN. The low memory size is not that much of an issue, as PCI-E 3 bandwidth and latency are pretty decent.

      And besides, nobody is forcing you to buy it, hey - there are cars that cost millions, are you complaining about that too? And why would you? How does this product or its cost affect you? Isn't its ownership entirely up to you? Surely nobody would need a car like that?

      "it allows more apps to run concurrently on the same machine without competing for CPU directly" - you have no idea how multi-threaded hardware and operating systems work, do you? There is always "fighting", well, it is called "scheduling" and just because you have more cores doesn't necessarily mean your system can handle multiple applications better, especially in the case of applications running in "user mode", schedulers are quite good, and your "many applications" will actually run better on a faster chip with less physical cores. Do you really think it is "each gets its own core" - take a look at your task manager and the total thread count. I am pretty sure it will be substantially more than 8, so there will always be "fighting"...

      AMD doesn't have the performance, so it cannot have Intel's margins either. Last but not least, performance is not AMD's sole problem - there is also the problem of efficiency, the AMD chip is cheaper, but over the course of its lifetime, it will probably end up more expensive, because it will use substantially more electricity and radiate substantially more heat, which if you use AC will also drive your electric bills up, unless you reside in the arctic region. So, unlike this 550$ GPU, your "awesome" cheap 8 cores are NOT A BARGAIN, as a matter of fact it is quite the opposite of that. It costs you more than you think, the cost is just hidden from you by distributing it over time, and it is marginally slower too. Well, you could just buy a slightly more expensive 4 core Intel chip that will run faster, cooler, and get it on credit so the cost is distributed over time too.

    4. Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a man who has no idea what the fuck he is talking about.

    5. Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked one of the i5 cpus was on par with an AMD FX-8350. Intel's mid range is as good as AMD's high end.

    6. Re: Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they're AMD, no, they're not "lousy". (And, I guess technically it's 4 cores with hyperthreading, I'm not sure)

      No, Hyperthreading is Intel's proprietary technology. AMD does something rather different with their CPU design, it has two cores within each module on a CPU that are sharing certain components.

    7. Re:Holy cow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      And besides, nobody is forcing you to buy it, hey - there are cars that cost millions, are you complaining about that too? And why would you? How does this product or its cost affect you? Isn't its ownership entirely up to you? Surely nobody would need a car like that?

      And when the fuck did I say anybody was forcing me to own it or your choice to have one impacted me? I don't give an elephants arse what you buy for your own machine. I think that such stuff exists is cool, but the overwhelming majority of people will never need it.

      I said "wow, you wacky people and your crazy stuff", followed by "this is what I have and is entirely suited for my needs".

      I'm entirely aware there are legitimate reasons for all of this stuff. But knowing I don't need it, nonetheless I continue to be wowed by these crazy high end stuff.

      Get over your fucking self, and read what I wrote.

      I'm not saying there aren't reasons for this kind of stuff. I'm saying for those of us who don't need it and know we don't need it, we can get the performance we want with entirely different hardware.

      Because when I rip a CD to MP3, and the same fucking CPU stays pegged until that is done, I can pretty much tell that processor affinity in the scheduler means that, yes, for all intents and purpose, while it is running that task gets a mostly dedicated CPU. Which allows everything else I'm doing to keep running smoothly.

      If you truly need the performance, buy any damned thing you can afford and justify.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No but it's a "big pile of awesome" and "some guy on Reddit said it was kewl!"

    9. Re:Holy cow ... by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Wait till Christmas, it'll be on sale on Newegg or Amazon like $499.99 o.O

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    10. Re: Holy cow ... by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      In a looser sense (only slightly), Hyperthreading is called SMT and is used by the Xbox 360 and PS3 CPUs, some IBM CPUs (sometimes 4-way), Sparc (8-way on some) etc., latest MIPS and the next-gen AMD (Zen) is said to use it.

  13. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    AMD acquired ATI almost a decade ago...

  14. Re:LOL by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Umm, you don't seem to act any smarter yourself.

    Classic tip from Thomas Jefferson: "Nothing gives one person so much advantage over another as to remain always cool and unruffled under all circumstances."

  15. Re:Windows master race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You forgot that Windows has developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, ...

    Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, Developers, developers, developers, developers, DEVELOPERSSSSSS, developers, developers, develoPers, developers, DEVVVeelopers, developers, developers......*clapclap* developers *clap* developers *clap* developers *clap* developers *clap* developers *clap* *redface* *clap* developers, developEEERRRS! *clapclapclapclap* !!!

  16. Re:Windows master race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nobody wants to deal with open sourcing drivers because you guys will never be happy. Something will always be wrong and cause complaints. And for what, the 0.00003% of their customers? As a business it doesn't make sense to devote time and resources to a project that only a handful of people will ever care about.

  17. Let's swap anecdotes! by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

    I've never actually been able to get Linux to run properly on arbitrary hardware that I happened to own.

    I, on the other hand, have run into one thing that Linux didn't work with. I have a collection of accumulated 'stuff' and just last night Frankensteined a PC together. I don't even know the model number of most of the parts. It's an Nvidia 8600 (something) video card, and a Soundblaster Live, I know that much. Worked just fine, no issues. (Streams PC games from Steam pretty well to the TV upstairs, too.)

    I purchased a mid-high prebuilt 'gaming rig' a couple years back, and everything 'just worked', except the "SoundBlaster® X-Fi XtremeAudio" card. That was the 'one thing'. There was a config fix but I just pulled the card and used the onboard MB audio. Whatever that is worked fine.

    Just installed Linux for my cousin this weekend. Some HP laptop, I honestly didn't even check the model. Everything just worked, including the 'scroll region' on the trackpad, and the weird 'slide-touch' volume control above the keyboard.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    1. Re:Let's swap anecdotes! by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      For reasons I will not go into, I needed to Install Skype for Windows, and use a Webcam that works fine on ALL of my Linux systems. But after 30 minutes of trying, I could not find drivers for this Logitec camera that is detected automatically on Linux. I had a similar experience with some older scanners.

    2. Re:Let's swap anecdotes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a ThinkCentre that I was loaned a while back. I installed Linux on it, off it went. Everything just worked.

      I later needed to install Windows on it, so I did.

      It took me about 4 days to find most of the drivers, and I'm still missing a few. I had to download the network driver, copy it over by USB, and then load it on the system by hand, only to find out it was the wrong driver masquerading as the correct one.

      So off I went, downloaded another one that worked.

      Then I rebooted the system, and found video drivers. nVidia's autodetect software wouldn't work, so I had to search on Google to find out what hardware it had, downloaded that, installed it, and rebooted.

      Next time it loaded up, I found that the Windows number I'd typed in wasn't allowed to activate. I went and found an application that let me change it, rather than reinstall, and retyped the number. It worked that time. The odds of my typing the number incorrectly and still getting a valid one are rather low, so I think it's more likely that the system failed to activate.

      Took me a couple of days to find the sound drivers. Again, the ones on the Lenovo website wouldn't load. Still haven't got a few of the subsystems working, but it's going enough for me.

      Installing updates, well, that's another matter entirely. Load updates, reboot, system left overnight didn't install. Power off, power on, boot, system starts telling me it didn't shut down properly. Let it boot up, reboot, updates install properly. More updates, installed correct this time, boot, more updates, reboot, fail. Power off, power on, boot up, reboot, drivers install.

      Four bloody days it took to get a system I could use. This is with the superior user-friendly Windows that doesn't have problems.

      Always amused me: Linux doesn't have drivers? LINUX IS SHIT!

      Windows doesn't have drivers? Unsupported hardware should be discarded.

    3. Re:Let's swap anecdotes! by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Ditto that entire post, many times!

  18. Poor drivers for a Radeon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't say!

  19. Re: Windows master race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps this will change with technologies like Electron that minimize platform differences.

  20. What's the story on releasing hardware specs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been awhile since I read up on this stuff so I'm probably out of date (and may even misremember what I did read in the past.) Does AMD release hardware specifications for the open source community to work with? Is the hardware so complex that the open source community couldn't figure it out even if they did have the specs? If AMD refuses to release the specs, then is it because of legal reasons ?( Some of the 'intellectual property' is still legally encumbered somehow perhaps.) Or is AMD afraid some competitor will steal their secrets? If anybody genuinely knows (and can talk) I'd appreciate being informed.

    1. Re:What's the story on releasing hardware specs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the hardware so complex that the open source community couldn't figure it out even if they did have the specs?

      AMD releases a lot of specs for their CPUs and GPUs, down to info on register-level initialization and such. Writing something that gets the graphics to the screen is comparatively easy, but getting it there with any kind of impressive speed is more difficult. There are compilers included in the drivers that need to be optimized for the hardware and the expected workload, need to cover a ton of corner cases, etc. There are recompilers for older API versions that aren't directly supported by the hardware anymore (fixed function graphics APIs), state trackers for all of the supported APIs, etc.

      In the official closed drivers, there's likely to be patent-encumbered code, optimizations that the vendor wants to keep as trade secrets rather than patenting, code licensed from other vendors, etc. Releasing the specs for the hardware means that they can keep the legally-fraught stuff pretty closed.

  21. Re:Windows master race by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

    Nobody wants to deal with open sourcing drivers because you guys will never be happy. Something will always be wrong and cause complaints. And for what, the 0.00003% of their customers? As a business it doesn't make sense to devote time and resources to a project that only a handful of people will ever care about.

    Big Linux user for years. Nvidia only since before AMD bought them. Always use the binary driver and am totally happy. I do not use Linux for religious reasons. I use it because it works better. The Nvidia binary driver works better.

  22. Re:LOL by dj245 · · Score: 1

    AMD acquired ATI almost a decade ago...

    And yet, the video driver is still called atikmdag.sys. Yes, even in the latest drivers. There's probably a perfectly valid reason for this related to legacy support of older software, but still.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  23. Re:Windows master race who developes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot that Windows has developers, developers,...

    These 'Windows developers' don't actually work for Microsoft though, do they? At least not the ones for hardware drivers. Manufacturers always have to insure their hardware (whether it's a printer, audio, graphics, etc.) works with Windows and the burden is on them to provide the software. Or have things changed in the last few years?

  24. AMD is rather small by Kartu · · Score: 1

    AMD is rather small and short on resources (thanks for people not buying it and manufacturers not offering it even where it is very competitive, e.g. AMD Carrizo notebook chip, but whatever the reason is).

    How could they afford spending much resources on like less than 1% of the market? (I don't mean Linux/Unix, I mean GAMING on Linux, does such thing even exist?)

    Sounds like a waste to me.

    On the other hand, they do embrace open/common standard thing wherever they can. (standard OpenCL vs proprietary CUDA, standard FreeSync vs G-Sync, sad they have nothing vs artificially locked down PhysX)

  25. Need the new AMD low end GPU to be released by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    As you may know AMD has a few little half-gens of GPU released : GCN 1.0 (7750, 7970, 280X, 240, 250, 270, 370) ; GCN 1.1 (7790, 260, 360, Kaveri APU), GCN 1.2 (only R9 285 and 380 for now, Carrizo APU later)

    The new driver architecture will only support GCN 1.2.
    There's an AMD GPU in the works, codenamed Iceland, to replace the R7 240 (Oland) which has older tech. But AMD won't release it yet, probably because of internal competition and inventory build up of the similar but older GPU.

    So if you're looking for a GPU to buy, beware what you do.

    1. Re:Need the new AMD low end GPU to be released by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Forgot to include the 290/390 in GCN 1.1, and Fury is presumably 1.2 or highly similar.
      Those are unofficial "version numbers", too.

  26. Who cares... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The gamers that will plunk down 200-300-400-500 on a video card...
    And are running linux.

    Number in the hundreds.

    Fuckem.

  27. Re:Windows master race by kimvette · · Score: 1

    > Fact is most users would easily be just as comfortable on a gnu/linux or Mac machine.

    OS/X, sure. For me, Mac hardware, not so much. Generally when a new Mac comes out it's already behind the curve... and then the go and cripple them by making them non-upgradable. Hell, aren't they even GLUING the Macbooks together now making them unserviceable? Between that, the chicklet keyboard, and the one-button touchpad (ugh! Don't suggest multitouch as a workaround), and you've completely lost me.

    Linux - I work with it all day long, but on my own time it's Windows. Why? Photoshop and Lightroom CC, Adobe CS2 (I still use Illustrator CS2 - haven't had the need to upgrade to Illustrator 2015/CC), my embroidery machine, games, and 3D Vision. What, Steam is on Linux, you say? Well that's just great... how does 3D Vision work on Linux? Yeah I know there are a few different 3D Vision projects going on but I really don't want to spend more time fiddling with and tweaking my PC instead of actually using and enjoying it.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50