RADEON X1650 vs nvidia GT8500. Which one to buy?

syms · 2010-01-03 13:14:17

Hi,
Im planning to build a new computer. I found these two cards, but im not sure which one is better to buy. I mean, will ati open source drivers work on x1650? And how about nvidia, is its closed source driver good? The reason why i cant choose, is that i dont know which ones driver will work better. I currently have computer with radeon 9600 and ati open source driver works with no problems, but maybe nvidia drivers will work even better than ati's?
I dont play games at all, so the performance difference is not very important, i just need compiz or kwin eyecandy which would work with no lag. Also how about kde4 performance with nvidia? Mine radeon 9600 works very fast with kde4, and i saw some people who have problems with nvidia and slow kde4.
Also, i chose motherboard foxconn Foxconn A690GM2MA-RS2H and amd athlon 64 x2 6000+. Will this motherboard work with this cpu and will it be fully compatible with linux?
Thank you
EDIT: fixed the motherboard type

Last edited by syms (2010-01-03 22:30:23)

pixellany · 2010-01-03 13:30:36

Warning: I really don't know much about video cards!!

Seeing how well NVidia supports Linux, I doubt that I would consider anything else on my next upgrade.

Foxconn MB: Are you aware of the past issue with this company and Linux? (I haven't followed it, so it might be OK now.....)

Perry3D · 2010-01-03 13:49:52

I would prefer the ati card. The open source driver should work very well with this card (r500 chip).
Only for gaming i would propose the nvidia-card.

I also have a foxconn board (A7DA-S) and no problems.
@pixellany: Did you think of this: http://ubuntu-virginia.ubuntuforums.org … p?t=869249

Last edited by Perry3D (2010-01-03 13:56:16)

syms · 2010-01-03 14:46:19

Thanks for help, but its still hard decision to choose which one card is better.
About foxconn motherboards, does anyone know if this motherboard will work fine with linux? i hope that bug is fixed in this motherboard

graysky · 2010-01-03 14:49:07

My vote is for the nvidia card. ATI have been nothing but trouble for me.

Dheart · 2010-01-03 15:57:42

It's true that nvidia doesn't offer open source support, however have that in mind:
1) Ati's propietary drivers really really suck (browse some of the threads on this forums about them).
2) Ati's open source drivers for this card will provide you with decent acceleration, but that's about it (Meaning no advanced video decoding using the GPU).
3) nvidia provides VDPAU, whereas Ati has nothing WORKING to offer in this area, much less with their open source drivers
4) nvidia & slow kde got fixed

Consider those things.

quarkup · 2010-01-03 17:38:09

never had problems with my nvidia geforce go 6800
basically its just needed to install the driver and set the xorg.conf driver to "nvidia"

syms · 2010-01-03 17:41:26

ok thanks for opinions but how about foxconn motherboard? i really need to know how linux works on it.

flamelab · 2010-01-03 17:49:32

The Nvidia one of course. Don't even try to buy an ATi card now.

Skripka · 2010-01-03 18:01:20

syms wrote:

ok thanks for opinions but how about foxconn motherboard? i really need to know how linux works on it.

My friend,

You CANNOT use an AMD CPU with that mainboard. That particular board has an Intel LGA775 socket--and can only take a max of a Core2 E4XXX CPU. If you're buying it, I would not sink money into it-If you're getting it from a friend it might be worth it. You'd be stuck with only 2 DIMM slots, and a max of 2GB of RAM...it also isn't a very good layout geographically

See:

http://www.foxconnchannel.com/product/m … -us0000228

Last edited by Skripka (2010-01-03 18:03:24)

syms · 2010-01-03 22:29:37

Skripka wrote:

syms wrote:
ok thanks for opinions but how about foxconn motherboard? i really need to know how linux works on it.
My friend,
You CANNOT use an AMD CPU with that mainboard. That particular board has an Intel LGA775 socket--and can only take a max of a Core2 E4XXX CPU. If you're buying it, I would not sink money into it-If you're getting it from a friend it might be worth it. You'd be stuck with only 2 DIMM slots, and a max of 2GB of RAM...it also isn't a very good layout geographically
See:
http://www.foxconnchannel.com/product/m … -us0000228

sorry, i gave you wrong motherboard type. Actually the motherboard which i meant is Foxconn A690GM2MA-RS2H.

Skripka · 2010-01-03 23:35:33

syms wrote:

sorry, i gave you wrong motherboard type. Actually the motherboard which i meant is Foxconn A690GM2MA-RS2H.

Ah, that mainboard should work fine, onboard audio and all. Know that if you're buying new--that your hardware won't be upgradeable short of buying a whole new box basically, this may or may not matter. In any case an AMD 6000+ and some 800mHz DDR2 will do you fine for most things....also know that AMD CPUs have issues when all four DIMM slots are loaded, if you're overclocking your memory.

Myself I don't like micro-ATX boards anyway, but that is my personal taste. The layouts are always too cramped, and things get blocked and covered to easily IMHO.

Last edited by Skripka (2010-01-03 23:36:48)

drcouzelis · 2010-01-04 00:14:44

I'll add my vote for the ATI card. The Radean X1650 is in the R500 series (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison … sing_units) which works very well with the open source Radeon driver and compiz. (see http://wiki.x.org/wiki/RadeonProgram

I have been happy with my Radeon X850 (a generation before yours) and the open source drivers. I use compiz and play hardware accelerated 2D and 3D games. Even so, I agree that the Nvidia closed source drivers are more powerful. The benefits of ATI to me are pretty much philosophical, (open source) and since they are open source, they are available for all open source operating systems and architectures.

Also, please correct me if this is wrong: when a new Linux kernel comes out, you have to wait until Nvidia releases an updated version to go along with that kernel. Is this true? If it is, how long do they take on average?

Dheart · 2010-01-04 07:11:25

drcouzelis wrote:

Also, please correct me if this is wrong: when a new Linux kernel comes out, you have to wait until Nvidia releases an updated version to go along with that kernel. Is this true? If it is, how long do they take on average?

Usually working nvidia drivers (or a fix how to compile the old ones) is released two-three days after the first kernel RC so basicly support is instantaneous, unlike ati proprietary...

zodmaner · 2010-01-04 09:31:39

For now, just go with Nvidia. You won't regret it.

I've just recently switched to Nvidia from an ATI card (an X700), and after almost 2 years of suffering with poor quality of the ATI driver and waiting for the ATI open/close source driver to mature, it's really an eye opener. The quality of Nvidia driver is very, very good (especially compared to that of ATI). In short, the Nvidia card just work (and work very well) with Linux and provides additional features such as twinview or VDPAU, while with ATI you only get a "mostly" working driver (no/poor 3D support, for example), which is really sad when you see your ATI card that can play Half Life 2 on Windows just fine is struggling hard just to render Nexuiz/Google Earth because of poor driver support.

Sure, the ATI open source driver is rapidly improving, but to be honest, it wasn't quite ready yet to justify buying an ATI card right now. Just look at the news item on the problem with new kernel and ATI KMS. If I were you, I would just go with the card that have a working driver right now, instead of buying a card that required me to wait for a driver to mature in order to use full performance of the card.

Last edited by zodmaner (2010-01-04 09:44:53)

Mr.Elendig · 2010-01-04 12:51:52

My vote go to nvidia, because of vdpau. Tho I would really go for a nvidia 9600gt or similar.

MattSmith · 2010-01-05 04:35:50

I will also vote nvidia on this one. I used to have an R600 series (2900xt) there were a few problems with it, when I switched to a 8600GT I got about the same performance which is pathetic. That being said ATI didn't fully start supporting linux until the new cards like the 3XXX, 4XXX, and 5XXX. Even then I would buy anyting older than 4XXX if I were hoping for decent 3d acceleration. So for older cards Nvidia all the way, for some new ones (as in 4XXX and up) I would say which ever is cheaper.

As for the Mobo, I would worry too much, as every motherboard I have ever tried has been supported by linux out of the box. I used to go around with an ubuntu disc and boot it on all my friends comps to show them. The only exception to that was an old intel celeron computer from HP that was made in 1999 and for some reason the only kernel the would boot on it was PCLOS ... I have no idea why.

braincenter · 2010-01-05 12:13:40

I have the Radeon X1650 on my computer and am using the open source driver.

I also have tried for months to try and get it configured to run Autocad/Cad/programs to run under wine. I have also tried Varicad which is native to Linux.

No matter how I try to configure the radeon, I still can't get rendering of CAD 3d models to work. The screen just goes black. I can see the wireframe in 2d only.

I can't reccomend the ATI because of this. For all other applications, I rate the X1650 as passable.

BC

Last edited by braincenter (2010-01-05 12:15:23)

JuseBox · 2010-01-05 12:30:11

Nvidia I will never use a different card. Its simple and works... no its not "open source" but at least for the most part they are pretty good with the linux support.

mikesd · 2010-01-05 12:38:17

If you need decent 3D performance then I would go with nVidia. You need a proprietary driver however. I have a 8600GT in my workstation.

If all you really need is 2D and/or having a tainted kernel bothers you, then I would lean towards ATI/Intel as their open source drivers are pretty good. I have an Intel GMA X3100 in my laptop and it works well with KMS, xrandr and xcompmgr.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-01-03 13:14:17

RADEON X1650 vs nvidia GT8500. Which one to buy?

#2 2010-01-03 13:30:36

Re: RADEON X1650 vs nvidia GT8500. Which one to buy?

#3 2010-01-03 13:49:52

Re: RADEON X1650 vs nvidia GT8500. Which one to buy?

#4 2010-01-03 14:46:19

Re: RADEON X1650 vs nvidia GT8500. Which one to buy?

#5 2010-01-03 14:49:07

Re: RADEON X1650 vs nvidia GT8500. Which one to buy?

#6 2010-01-03 15:57:42

Re: RADEON X1650 vs nvidia GT8500. Which one to buy?

#7 2010-01-03 17:38:09

Re: RADEON X1650 vs nvidia GT8500. Which one to buy?

#8 2010-01-03 17:41:26

Re: RADEON X1650 vs nvidia GT8500. Which one to buy?

#9 2010-01-03 17:49:32

Re: RADEON X1650 vs nvidia GT8500. Which one to buy?

#10 2010-01-03 18:01:20

Re: RADEON X1650 vs nvidia GT8500. Which one to buy?

#11 2010-01-03 22:29:37

Re: RADEON X1650 vs nvidia GT8500. Which one to buy?

#12 2010-01-03 23:35:33

Re: RADEON X1650 vs nvidia GT8500. Which one to buy?

#13 2010-01-04 00:14:44

Re: RADEON X1650 vs nvidia GT8500. Which one to buy?

#14 2010-01-04 07:11:25

Re: RADEON X1650 vs nvidia GT8500. Which one to buy?

#15 2010-01-04 09:31:39

Re: RADEON X1650 vs nvidia GT8500. Which one to buy?

#16 2010-01-04 12:51:52

Re: RADEON X1650 vs nvidia GT8500. Which one to buy?

#17 2010-01-05 04:35:50

Re: RADEON X1650 vs nvidia GT8500. Which one to buy?

#18 2010-01-05 12:13:40

Re: RADEON X1650 vs nvidia GT8500. Which one to buy?

#19 2010-01-05 12:30:11

Re: RADEON X1650 vs nvidia GT8500. Which one to buy?

#20 2010-01-05 12:38:17

Re: RADEON X1650 vs nvidia GT8500. Which one to buy?

Board footer