Best card for OpenGL? (Linux)

[Nena Trinity]

EVGA GeForce GTX 960 4GB PCI-Express 3.0, "SSC", ACX 2.0+, Witcher 3 (digital voucher)

2.699,-

LEGG I HANDLEVOGN

Lagerstatus: 

 11 stk. på lager.

 

Finansieringspris: 251,-/mnd. (12 mnd.)

Totalpris 12 mnd. 3.851,-

Se detaljer på finansiering

 

 

 

 

 

• Se alt fra EVGA
• Se tilbehør til dette produktet
• Legg til sammenligning

 

 

 

 E-post

Varenummer: 839637

 

Produsentens varenr.: 04G-P4-3966-KR

 

Vekt m/emballasje: 1.25 kg

 

Produsentens garanti (md.): 36

 

VS

 

Sapphire Radeon TRI-X R9 290 4GB "OC" PCI-Express 3.0, DL-DVI-D + DL-DVI-D, HDMI, DP, UEFI

2.849,-

LEGG I HANDLEVOGN

Lagerstatus: 

 64 stk. på lager.

 

Finansieringspris: 265,-/mnd. (12 mnd.)

Totalpris 12 mnd. 4.018,-

Se detaljer på finansiering

 

 

 

 

 

• Se alt fra Sapphire
• Se tilbehør til dette produktet
• Legg til sammenligning
• Demovare med redusert pris tilgjengelig

 

 

 

 E-post

Varenummer: 836487

 

Produsentens varenr.: 11227-13-20G

 

Vekt m/emballasje: 1.44 kg

 

Produsentens garanti (md.): 24

 

If it was in DirectX only this would be a no brainer but the issue is AMD has not been able to make a single Linux driver that can reach 60+ FPS on the most amazing games that is currently ported to Linux it cant even reach 50 FPS in many games which is not good at all. What about the 960? Well a regular 960 does 100+ FPS in the majority of the games I have seen they tested head to head and even scoring twice as good to three times as good. AMD may fix their drivers so should I go red and hope they fix it or go green and stay safe?

 

EVGA 960 pros:

*Best GTX 960 on the planet?

*Better performance NOW. (OpenGL)

*Less power and needs smaller PSU.

 

EVGA 960 cons:

*Less future proof?

*Weaker on the Windows side.

 

Sapphire 290 pros:

*May get better drivers in the future?

*Stronger on Windows games.

 

Sapphire 290 cons:

*Needs better PSU.

*Poor performance on Linux.

*Some games it cant render mesh with out doing some work.

 

After you read all this VOTE!

[ZetZet]

r9 290 kewl, 960 is not even close.

wait what nvidia has better opengl performance? since when is that the case.

 

 

using linux when windows 8.1 and ssd's exist just feels like a massive self handicap to me and I will never understand that. 

[Nena Trinity]

r9 290 kewl, 960 is not even close.

wait what nvidia has better opengl performance? since when is that the case.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=bioshock-inf-18&num=2

The poor 290 is bottlenecked by the awful Catalyst Linux drivers...

[ZetZet]

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=bioshock-inf-18&num=2

The poor 290 is bottlenecked by the awful Catalyst Linux drivers...

if you want to stick with linux then ( why) I would get the 960. never bet on amd to fix anything they might go bankrupt while trying to. 

[Nena Trinity]

if you want to stick with linux then ( why) I would get the 960. never bet on amd to fix anything they might go bankrupt while trying to. 

As it looks now yes but AMD may fix it? Their last fixes did increase Metro from less than 30fps to near 60fps. =S

[Nena Trinity]

So did people even read before they vote here? :<

 

Anybody?

[MageTank]

So did people even read before they vote here? :<

 

Anybody?

 

I did, and i still voted for the R9 290. This is not coming from any fanboy bias, like much of the responses from your previous thread. Most of the GPU's i own are in fact Nvidia GPU's, but price:performance favors AMD in this scenario. The Price:Performance of a GTX 960 is terrible when compared to other cards in its price range. I currently use a GTX 770, which is roughly 10-15% faster than a GTX 960, and on equal footing with the GTX 960 if you count maxwell GPU's having better driver support, and my card still runs games pretty terrible on linux when compared to windows. This is more likely due to the nature of the porting. I can see why fglrx might be a source of the problem (lets face it, AMD has not updated their drivers in a very, very long time) and you may still have a better experience on an Nvidia GPU, but the GTX 960 will seal your fate when it comes to 1080p gaming. You will not exceed 1080p on that card in 90% of the games you play, and some games, even at 1080p, will be too demanding for that card to max.

 

The best advice i could give you, would be to either wait for prices to drop to get the best piece of hardware for your dollar, or save up just a little more and get a GTX 970, or find a cheap GTX 780 for sale. I do not know the prices of computer hardware in Norway, but if its possible for you to get a working GTX 780 for cheap, i would go for it.

[osbios]

Sorry to say, but if you want to play AAA titles you still have to use windows.

I didn't use the catalyst driver for over a year now. And the open source drivers did pretty well for my 7870.
But I hat to use bleeding edge drivers and OpenGL infrastructure(mesa). And that's not something you want to do when you just want it to work. I did it mainly because the open drivers are better in some aspects and as a tester to find and report bugs.
Also newer cards like the 290 will have worse open driver support then my 7870.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

I understand if you need to get work done but why Linux if you're looking to game? You do know that windows has tons more games right?

[Nena Trinity]

I did, and i still voted for the R9 290. This is not coming from any fanboy bias, like much of the responses from your previous thread. Most of the GPU's i own are in fact Nvidia GPU's, but price:performance favors AMD in this scenario. The Price:Performance of a GTX 960 is terrible when compared to other cards in its price range. I currently use a GTX 770, which is roughly 10-15% faster than a GTX 960, and on equal footing with the GTX 960 if you count maxwell GPU's having better driver support, and my card still runs games pretty terrible on linux when compared to windows. This is more likely due to the nature of the porting. I can see why fglrx might be a source of the problem (lets face it, AMD has not updated their drivers in a very, very long time) and you may still have a better experience on an Nvidia GPU, but the GTX 960 will seal your fate when it comes to 1080p gaming. You will not exceed 1080p on that card in 90% of the games you play, and some games, even at 1080p, will be too demanding for that card to max.

 

The best advice i could give you, would be to either wait for prices to drop to get the best piece of hardware for your dollar, or save up just a little more and get a GTX 970, or find a cheap GTX 780 for sale. I do not know the prices of computer hardware in Norway, but if its possible for you to get a working GTX 780 for cheap, i would go for it.

Well the 290 also do need a bigger PSU but its still cheaper than a 970 even then. But if AMD do not fix these issues I am gonna be worried.

 

Also does the OCed 960 help at all? (I do know it wont beat the 290 but I think it beats the 280 and I know it beats 285X and its not to far behind 280X.)

 

Sorry to say, but if you want to play AAA titles you still have to use windows.

I didn't use the catalyst driver for over a year now. And the open source drivers did pretty well for my 7870.

But I hat to use bleeding edge drivers and OpenGL infrastructure(mesa). And that's not something you want to do when you just want it to work. I did it mainly because the open drivers are better in some aspects and as a tester to find and report bugs.

Also newer cards like the 290 will have worse open driver support then my 7870.

Yeah I know but I want to use Windows only when I have to because that thing slows down so much if I use it for all my daily nonsense.

 

Also what card would you pick?

 

I understand if you need to get work done but why Linux if you're looking to game? You do know that windows has tons more games right?

Well I also want to use the internet without using the CCleaner and Anti-Virus all the damn time!

 

Not hating on Windows but that thing should be more secure and not slowdown.

[osbios]

Also what card would you pick?

Like the others already said. This cards are on two different performance levels, and with this prices the 290 is the way to go.

Most likely I will get a 290 myself. I just wait for the 300 line to be release and then look how prices will develop.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Not hating on Windows but that thing should be more secure and not slowdown.

 

Well even though Linux viruses are very low, there are still some that exists in the wild. 

Were you using windows on a mechanical hard drive before?

[MageTank]

Well the 290 also do need a bigger PSU but its still cheaper than a 970 even then. But if AMD do not fix these issues I am gonna be worried.

 

Also does the OCed 960 help at all? (I do know it wont beat the 290 but I think it beats the 280 and I know it beats 285X and its not to far behind 280X.)

 

Yeah I know but I want to use Windows only when I have to because that thing slows down so much if I use it for all my daily nonsense.

 

Also what card would you pick?

 

Well I also want to use the internet without using the CCleaner and Anti-Virus all the damn time!

 

Not hating on Windows but that thing should be more secure and not slowdown.

 

I run the same windows installation i've had for over 2 years now (windows 7 64 bit ultimate) and it has yet to slow down on me using an SSD. I run CCleaner every month or so but aside from that, nothing else needs to be done to maintain it. TRIM is enabled by default for me, and you do not need to defrag SSDs. 

 

As for the GPU question, the GTX 960 is known to OC very high if you have one of the better cards with better power delivery, but it still will not bridge the gap between the R9 290. If you are worried about power consumption, i should mention that i have several friends that run 290X's on 500w PSU's, and they game all day on them. Here are some video's of the card being ran on benchmarks with a wattage meter testing power draw of the system from the wall:

 

 (290 X)

 

(290)

 

That being said, one could easily run a GTX 960 on a very high quality 300w PSU with absolutely  no problems. My advice would be to go with which ever one you want the most. While the 290 is the superior card in a majority of the standard usage situations, it is up to you to get what you want for your dollar. I would hate you see you get a 290 and be unsatisfied with it. If you do not plan to game beyond 1080p, i am sure the GTX 960 will be fine for you for the most part.

[Nena Trinity]

Like the others already said. This cards are on two different performance levels, and with this prices the 290 is the way to go.

Most likely I will get a 290 myself. I just wait for the 300 line to be release and then look how prices will develop.

Well what about a 970 with blower fan?

http://us.msi.com/product/vga/GTX-970-4GD5-OC.html#hero-overview

Its about the same price as the MSI 290 Gaming edition + 750W PSU. So if I where to go with one of those?

MSI vs MSI? The AMD drivers still has issues and the 970 only has 3.5 so I most be careful not to buy VRAM hog games. =S

 

Well even though Linux viruses are very low, there are still some that exists in the wild. 

Were you using windows on a mechanical hard drive before?

I have never had a single SSD to date but that will change with next PC!

My MSI laptop does have a 250GB SSD but the morons who made it put OS on the HDD...

 

I run the same windows installation i've had for over 2 years now (windows 7 64 bit ultimate) and it has yet to slow down on me using an SSD. I run CCleaner every month or so but aside from that, nothing else needs to be done to maintain it. TRIM is enabled by default for me, and you do not need to defrag SSDs. 

 

As for the GPU question, the GTX 960 is known to OC very high if you have one of the better cards with better power delivery, but it still will not bridge the gap between the R9 290. If you are worried about power consumption, i should mention that i have several friends that run 290X's on 500w PSU's, and they game all day on them. Here are some video's of the card being ran on benchmarks with a wattage meter testing power draw of the system from the wall:

 

 (290 X)

 

(290)

 

That being said, one could easily run a GTX 960 on a very high quality 300w PSU with absolutely  no problems. My advice would be to go with which ever one you want the most. While the 290 is the superior card in a majority of the standard usage situations, it is up to you to get what you want for your dollar. I would hate you see you get a 290 and be unsatisfied with it. If you do not plan to game beyond 1080p, i am sure the GTX 960 will be fine for you for the most part.

Yes I know it runs fine on 500w but for how long? A guy I know said the PSU will lose 5-10% per year of its performance so higher W is better yes?

Also MSI 290 Gaming vs http://us.msi.com/product/vga/GTX-970-4GD5-OC.html#hero-overviewwhich is better?

One has bad AMD drivers and causes global warming kinda. The other is shitty overpriced and only has 3.5GB of VRAM...

To me both sucks! But which is less shit?

 

 - - - - - - - - - - 

 

Moved to here: (part 3)

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/376045-round-3-best-gpu-for-linux-290-vs-970/#entry5085501