AMD vs Nvidia

[eugenia@lemmy.ml]

I bought an A-series Intel card, and I'm very happy with it. Very good drivers that work perfectly with Wayland, and its recent OpenCL drivers now work with Blender and DaVinci Resolve too (despite Resolve saying that it only works with nvidia or amd, the new drivers make the dedicated intel cards work too). Gaming is not too bad either, but I don't game much.

[just_another_person@lemmy.world]

I am AMD and use Blender just fine. What do you mean?

[synapse1278@lemmy.world]

FOSS driver only, the choices are AMD and Intel. Nvidia is out of the picture.

Of coursenouveau drivers are still around and under active development, but as far as I know the performance if still very far from reasonable expectations.

[sonalder@lemmy.ml]

If you're on Linux AMD is clearly superior because NVidia has Linux performance issue compared to Windows so you're ending up paying more for less. However NVidia has the monopole for a reason their product are superior but at what price ? Also if you want to avoid proprietary drivers AMD gets the win too.

I do think AMD is the better option for anyone that spend less than 800-1'000$ on a GPU even for Windows gamers. Personnaly I have made the switch from NVidia to AMD 2 years after ditching Windows for Linux, Never looked back even though Cyberpunk2077 looks amazing on NVidia RTX and some other things.

I have upgraded last year to a RX 7800 XT and have no regrets on spending that money.

[webghost0101@sopuli.xyz]

Just to add some variation to these comments.

Nvidia works absolutely fine on (arch) linux, that needs to be said. Performance is on par with windows.

Depending on what your needs are its the better choice. (I have a few pieces of software that greatly rely on CUDA)

But the elephant in the room is your need for non proprietary driver. The only open source nvidia does is the strict minimum to catch up and stay competitive on linux (they where losing before). There is a clear winner on this front. Que all the other comments.

[webghost0101@sopuli.xyz]

Cuda and optix are anecdotally three times faster at rendering than any amd solution.

That doesn’t mean amd doesn’t perform well though, its personal preference on how much that time saving is worth it.

[llufollis@sh.itjust.works]

if( you need CUDA ){
Use Nvidia (note that OSs officially supported by CUDA often use "old" versions of linux, like Debian 12 (6.1) or Fedora 39 (6.8), I personally use Arch);
} else { Use AMD, you will have less problems and it'll probably be easier to setup; }

[just_another_person@lemmy.world]

AMD-HIP works just great for me.

[kitnaht@lemmy.world]

"Works great" and "Could work 3x faster" matter to a lot of people.

[just_another_person@lemmy.world]

Well then you're just nagging about hardware, which isn't the issue being spouted on here. Blender works with AMD hardware just great, which OP was saying is not the case.

[kitnaht@lemmy.world]

Everyone's gonna suggest AMD here because of your requirement of no-proprietary drivers; but unless you're some sort of high-value target to a foreign government, I honestly choose the more pragmatic route of just using the proprietary NVidia driver and going NVidia. Especially if I'm not budget constrained on card.

The fact of the matter is, AMD has just simply fallen behind. NVidia cards are (and have been for like 3 generations now) more performant. There is good reason why they dominate the market right now; they're just simply better.

It really depends on how far you want to take your zealotry on open source; there are parts of the CPU microcode that can see everything you do. Those are proprietary. Your bios is proprietary. You're probably running 100 different proprietary blobs even IF you choose not to use the drivers that NVidia supplies; so why hobble yourself with a slower card that doesn't have CUDA instructions? (often also very good for AI work if you are interested in that at all)

I certainly understand wanting to push that direction for the sake of pushing that direction but - is performance and stability less important than using a proprietary driver?

[kitnaht@lemmy.world]

Blender works with AMD hardware just great

No it doesn't. That's our point. It works 25% as fast as its competition. That's not "working just great"...it's working slowly and like shit.

[manicdave@feddit.uk]

Also do some research over whether you actually do need cuda if you need cuda. It's synonymous with a lot of AI stuff, but in my experience it all works with rocm anyway.

[myersguy@lemmy.simpl.website]

there is no proprietary AMD Linux driver

I mean, there is. It just isn't recommended for most users.

[user_naa@lemmy.world]

I often hear how prprietary drivers breaks and have a lot of issues. But AMD card usally work very stable

[kitnaht@lemmy.world]

It was the opposite experience for me last time I tried an AMD card. But that was like 8 years ago.

[asudox@lemmy.asudox.dev]

NVIDIA is more problematic than AMD on Linux. So AMD.

[nyan@sh.itjust.works]

I wouldn't say the proprietary nvidia drivers are any worse than the open-source AMD drivers in terms of stability and performance (nouveau is far inferior to either). Their main issue is that they tend to be desupported long before the hardware breaks, leaving you with the choice of either nouveau or keeping an old kernel (and X version if using X—not sure how things work with Wayland) for compatibility with the old proprietary drivers.

[just_another_person@lemmy.world]

You're bitching about hardware capabilities. Read OP's comment and stop showing up just to comment if you can't provide anything constructive except whining pedantry.

[kitnaht@lemmy.world]

Nobody is bitching. Rage less. My constructive point is that NVidia is a better option.