Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 7 Feb 2021 14:27:37 -0600
From:      Valeri Galtsev <galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu>
To:        Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>
Cc:        Tomasz CEDRO <tomek@cedro.info>, Patrick Mahan <plmahan@gmail.com>, User Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Suggested upgrade for a GeForce GT 450
Message-ID:  <6D6F7A44-AEB9-418E-A0D1-3C77A4C1FD78@kicp.uchicago.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20210207204810.d575ae00.freebsd@edvax.de>
References:  <CAFDHx1LRvcJHNnYFJB=JQzk_p+17i9e2qEHZOMGRCojiyaV5aw@mail.gmail.com> <CAM8r67BBTuywp+2QS07sER+pHbAmtkETF3YdX_j_pHdpJiB6Xw@mail.gmail.com> <20210207204810.d575ae00.freebsd@edvax.de>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help


> On Feb 7, 2021, at 1:48 PM, Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> wrote:
>=20
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 16:57:47 +0100, Tomasz CEDRO wrote:
>> However, it turns out that nVidia in a nightmare for Open-Source, so
>> you cannot do anything except what they give you with a binary blob
>> driver, that is basic display stuff. If you want to do OpenCL or
>> similar then forget nVidia.
>=20
> That is also my individual experience with nVidia. While there
> are open source drivers, they're not as good as the binary ones
> supplied by nVidia, so if you expect 3D stuff to work (and most
> desktop environemnts today cannot work without them), you will
> have to use the original nVidia drivers, because neither "nv"
> nor "nouveau" would provide more functionality and performance
> than "vesa" (as "lowest common denominator") would.

There is reason for that. Nvidia does not disclose much of chip =
internals (like memory layout etc), so to write decent open source =
driver is not possible, hence only generic functions are supported by =
open source nv driver. Anything a step off usual, say dual screen with =
different screen resolutions - quite often thing in the Department I =
support - is not possible. You have to install Nvidia proprietary binary =
driver (I often correct those who say =E2=80=9Ccompile nvidia driver=E2=80=
=9D. Nope! What one is compiling is interface between proprietary binary =
driver and specific kernel).

>> After 20 years of being loyal customer of nVidia I have switched to
>> AMD RADEON RX580 simply because they support Open-Source while nVidia
>> does not.
>=20
> In the past, ATi had excellent open source support for all the
> features of the graphics card, and there was one (!) driver that
> supported them (named "ati"). Worked out of the box, no further
> fiddling with xorg.conf options or XML files... :-)

Same observation here. ATI chip internals were decently described by =
manufacturer in their documentation, so open source driver developers =
can write excellent drivers supporting pretty much all capabilities of =
the chip[set]. Such were my observations for a couple of decades, even =
after AMD bought ATI. Someone, correct me if you noticed things changed, =
which I hope they didn=E2=80=99t.

Valeri

> --=20
> Polytropon
> Magdeburg, Germany
> Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
> Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to =
"freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6D6F7A44-AEB9-418E-A0D1-3C77A4C1FD78>