Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Fresh Topic  (Read 10663 times)
Offline (Male) RetroX
Reply #15 Posted on: August 13, 2009, 03:53:44 PM

Master of all things Linux
Contributor
Location: US
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1055
MSN Messenger - classixretrox@gmail.com
View Profile Email
There's no correct driver

What card? There's always a correct driver.
He told me on MSN it was some GeForce

NVIDIA sucks
Logged
My Box: Phenom II 3.4GHz X4 | ASUS ATI RadeonHD 5770, 1GB GDDR5 RAM | 1x4GB DDR3 SRAM | Arch Linux, x86_64 (Cube) / Windows 7 x64 (Blob)
Quote from: Fede-lasse
Why do all the pro-Microsoft people have troll avatars? :(
Offline (Unknown gender) Game_boy
Reply #16 Posted on: August 13, 2009, 04:22:25 PM
Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 228

View Profile
There's no correct driver

What card? There's always a correct driver.
He told me on MSN it was some GeForce

NVIDIA sucks

Ah. Yeah, for Linux, go AMD. It has an official open driver with full support and open documentation.

Have you tried the Nouveau driver, Josh?

Logged
Offline (Male) Josh @ Dreamland
Reply #17 Posted on: August 13, 2009, 04:51:32 PM

Prince of all Goldfish
Developer
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2958

View Profile Email
Tried it? I had to blacklist it. Which fixed nothing. Prime.
Logged
"That is the single most cryptic piece of code I have ever seen." -Master PobbleWobble
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall, Friends of Voltaire
Offline (Male) RetroX
Reply #18 Posted on: August 13, 2009, 08:01:48 PM

Master of all things Linux
Contributor
Location: US
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1055
MSN Messenger - classixretrox@gmail.com
View Profile Email
Ah. Yeah, for Linux, go AMD. It has an official open driver with full support and open documentation.
And also the fact that the hardware is the same or better for 1/5 the price. :P

Seriously, both AMD and Intel's best processors are 64-bit, quad core, 3.2GHz, except Intel's is $1200 and AMD's is $200.  And the AMD one is better and more efficient. :/
Logged
My Box: Phenom II 3.4GHz X4 | ASUS ATI RadeonHD 5770, 1GB GDDR5 RAM | 1x4GB DDR3 SRAM | Arch Linux, x86_64 (Cube) / Windows 7 x64 (Blob)
Quote from: Fede-lasse
Why do all the pro-Microsoft people have troll avatars? :(
Offline (Unknown gender) Game_boy
Reply #19 Posted on: August 14, 2009, 04:52:00 AM
Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 228

View Profile
Ah. Yeah, for Linux, go AMD. It has an official open driver with full support and open documentation.
And also the fact that the hardware is the same or better for 1/5 the price. :P

Seriously, both AMD and Intel's best processors are 64-bit, quad core, 3.2GHz, except Intel's is $1200 and AMD's is $200.  And the AMD one is better and more efficient. :/

I'm an AMD fan, so I'd love if that were true, but CPU performance is not really related to the clockspeed. AMD's 3.4GHz Phenom II (they increased it by 200MHz yesterday) performs similarly to Intel's 2.66GHz Core i7 or 3.0GHz Core 2 Quad. This problem was reversed a few years ago when a 2.4GHz Athlon 64 performed similarly to a 3.8GHz Pentium 4.

AMD do tend to be better at the price point they're at in both CPU and graphics though. They're not ahead in either market in raw performance terms.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2009, 06:37:05 AM by Game_boy » Logged
Offline (Male) Rusky
Reply #20 Posted on: August 14, 2009, 06:19:08 PM

Resident Troll
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 960
MSN Messenger - rpjohnst@gmail.com
View Profile WWW Email
Somebody fix the front page please.
Logged
Offline (Male) RetroX
Reply #21 Posted on: August 14, 2009, 10:34:43 PM

Master of all things Linux
Contributor
Location: US
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1055
MSN Messenger - classixretrox@gmail.com
View Profile Email
They're not ahead in either market in raw performance terms.
I don't quite think that's true.  Intel is a massive power burner, and every Intel PC seems to work worse than every AMD PC I've used.  Not to mention that AMD laptops overheat a lot less than Intel.
Logged
My Box: Phenom II 3.4GHz X4 | ASUS ATI RadeonHD 5770, 1GB GDDR5 RAM | 1x4GB DDR3 SRAM | Arch Linux, x86_64 (Cube) / Windows 7 x64 (Blob)
Quote from: Fede-lasse
Why do all the pro-Microsoft people have troll avatars? :(
Offline (Female) serprex
Reply #22 Posted on: August 15, 2009, 01:53:10 PM
Smooth ER
Developer
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 106

View Profile WWW
Quote
but CPU performance is not really related to the clockspeed
On the contrary, it is directly correlated. There's merely other factors that must be included
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Game_boy
Reply #23 Posted on: August 15, 2009, 04:16:28 PM
Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 228

View Profile
Quote
but CPU performance is not really related to the clockspeed
On the contrary, it is directly correlated. There's merely other factors that must be included

Within an architecture, yes. Between them, it's another factor but you can't tell much from it. For example, 1.8GHz C2D > 3.4GHz P4. You have to look at non-synthetic benchmarks.
Logged
Offline (Male) RetroX
Reply #24 Posted on: August 15, 2009, 05:22:50 PM

Master of all things Linux
Contributor
Location: US
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1055
MSN Messenger - classixretrox@gmail.com
View Profile Email
Core2Duo 1.8 GHz is certainly not better than a 3.4 Phenom II.
Logged
My Box: Phenom II 3.4GHz X4 | ASUS ATI RadeonHD 5770, 1GB GDDR5 RAM | 1x4GB DDR3 SRAM | Arch Linux, x86_64 (Cube) / Windows 7 x64 (Blob)
Quote from: Fede-lasse
Why do all the pro-Microsoft people have troll avatars? :(
Offline (Male) Rusky
Reply #25 Posted on: August 15, 2009, 05:24:57 PM

Resident Troll
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 960
MSN Messenger - rpjohnst@gmail.com
View Profile WWW Email
Pentium 4 isn't multi-core. If you compare processors with the same number of cores, it's a lot closer, although other factors do affect it.
Logged
Offline (Male) RetroX
Reply #26 Posted on: August 15, 2009, 06:04:55 PM

Master of all things Linux
Contributor
Location: US
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1055
MSN Messenger - classixretrox@gmail.com
View Profile Email
Pentium 4 isn't multi-core. If you compare processors with the same number of cores, it's a lot closer, although other factors do affect it.
Oh, P4 was Pentium 4.  I thought it meant Phenom Quad. :/

And yeah, multiple cores is having multiple processors, and really, having a 3.4 GHz quad processor is like having a 13.2GHz processor (mostly).
Logged
My Box: Phenom II 3.4GHz X4 | ASUS ATI RadeonHD 5770, 1GB GDDR5 RAM | 1x4GB DDR3 SRAM | Arch Linux, x86_64 (Cube) / Windows 7 x64 (Blob)
Quote from: Fede-lasse
Why do all the pro-Microsoft people have troll avatars? :(
Offline (Male) antidote
Reply #27 Posted on: August 15, 2009, 06:51:35 PM
Member
Location: Job Corps. <.<
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 27

View Profile Email
one word "FLOPS" if you don't know what that means look it up. The clock cycle DOES have something to do with the performance but not as much as it used to, now Floating point ops/second is the standard, with most computer capable of a couple of Teraflops.

Alot of benchmark tools support testing the FLOP/S of your computer (Aquamark being a REALLY good one) and in terms of AMD vs Intel it depends on what your doing. Intel is great for a little bit of gaming and excellent for Devving while AMD is a gaming powerhouse (Although I'm drooling of the i7 right now) and is also good for a little bit Devving.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2009, 06:53:54 PM by antidote » Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Game_boy
Reply #28 Posted on: August 16, 2009, 05:13:01 AM
Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 228

View Profile
Pentium 4 isn't multi-core. If you compare processors with the same number of cores, it's a lot closer, although other factors do affect it.

Meant Pentium D. Still think I'm right on that.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) death-droid
Reply #29 Posted on: August 16, 2009, 08:09:25 AM
Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 19

View Profile
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »
  Print