Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question - Hardware

This is a discussion on Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question - Hardware ; I demand that Anton Ertl may or may not have written... > Darren Salt writes: >> I demand that Anton Ertl may or may not have written... >>> Darren Salt writes: [snip; Radeon 9200, 9250 3D performance] >>>> what tweaks? ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

  1. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    I demand that Anton Ertl may or may not have written...

    > Darren Salt writes:
    >> I demand that Anton Ertl may or may not have written...
    >>> Darren Salt writes:

    [snip; Radeon 9200, 9250 3D performance]
    >>>> what tweaks? (Limitation: the display consists of two monitors, total
    >>>> width 2304 pixels.)
    >>> In the Device section of the xorg.conf file:
    >>> Option "GARTSize" "16" #up to 64 on other systems

    >> Hmm. How does this differ from the AGPSize option? Just an alias? (I have
    >> that set to 128; memory says that the BIOS has the same setting, and the
    >> card is claimed to have 128MB on-board.)


    > I have no idea. I have never heard of AGPSize, and neither option is
    > documented in radeon(4) or Xorg.conf(5).


    It does seem to be recognised; and, indeed, X is using a 128MB aperture.

    >>> Option "ColorTiling" "on"

    >> On by default, according to Xorg.0.log, but disabled due to the total
    >> display width being greater than 2048 pixels.


    > Yes, some options are on by default. Actually only the following is
    > really needed:


    >>> Option "EnablePageFlip" "on"

    >> Enabled.


    >>> Option "AccelMethod" "XAA"

    >> I remember EXA working well, then not working well after an upgrade
    >> (unfortunately, I'm not certain exactly which upgrade, but I suspect
    >> something in X.org 6.9->7.1). Which is unfortunate, because it made
    >> xfwm4's compositing work well.


    > I just played around with various combinations of all these options, and
    > this combination turned out to be best for IIRC UT2004 performance.


    Fair enough...

    >>> Option "AGPMode" "4"

    >> Both board and card support 8x. Is there a good reason for selecting 4x
    >> despite this?


    > 8x made no difference in the benchmarks I ran (UT2004 and glxgears), and my
    > guess is that 4x is safer (although probably not significantly).


    Right. That stays at 8x :-)

    [snip]
    >> OTOH, I'm considering a 9550; ideally, I'd find something a bit better,
    >> but they seem rather thin on the ground :-\

    >
    > The Radeon X850XT AGP is still available, and not too expensive (~EUR
    > 120,-). Alternatively, a little less powerful and quite a bit
    > cheaper (and not much more expensive than a 9550): X800GTO (EUR 72,-).


    That should be... about £50? Yet the cheapest that I can find is
    significantly more expensive - £85 for a PCI-E version (no good to me), and
    over £100 for AGP versions.

    At those prices, they know where they can stick them...

    > If you go for the 9550, for some applications (like UT2004) you should
    > get a version with a 128-bit memory interface and 256MB RAM.


    The wider bus is probably sufficient :-)

    However, if EXA is fixed (hmm, X.org 7.2?), the 9200 which I'm using should
    still do well enough for most things.

    As for the next motherboard - ATM I'm leaning towards something with Intel
    graphics hardware. But that's not likely to happen until the current one
    fails (which, hopefully, won't be for at least two or three years).

    --
    | Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
    | RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
    | + Output less CO2 => avoid boiling weather. TIME IS RUNNING OUT *FAST*.

    Dawn alrea...

  2. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    Mark Adams wrote:
    > Show of hands -- who thinks I should really just upgrade?


    No, doing an upgrade would be an attempt to fix a software
    misconfiguration with a hardware replacement. You should be able to get
    much more performance out of your current hardware. Newer hardware will
    also most likely be harder to configure than old and well known hardware.

    There could be other reasons to do a hardware upgrade. Those reasons could
    include things like "having too much money" or "like to live on the
    bleeding edge". However "having difficulties to configure software for my
    well supported hardware" is not a reason to upgrade to bleeding edge
    hardware.

    As you have problems with Mandriva but things work better with Ubuntu you
    might want to consider switching Linux distribution instead. That would be
    a lot cheaper solution than trying to replace hardware. Still your 698 fps
    in Ubuntu sounds like software rendering only.

    With a Radeon 9200 (which is only slighter faster than your card) on a P4
    2.6 GHz I have been able to get 2918 fps with X.org 6.8. You should be
    able to expect above 2600 fps with hardware accelerated OpenGL with your
    current hardware configuration.

    regards Henrik
    --
    The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is:
    hc1(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers:
    root@localhost postmaster@localhost


  3. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    Mark Adams writes:
    >Anton Ertl wrote:
    >> Anyway, the nv driver does not support hardware 3D accelaration,
    >> thanks to Nvidia not providing the necessary programming information.

    >
    >Wait, does this mean that anyone running an Nvidia card under Linux
    >isn't going to have 3d acceleration at all?


    Not if they are using the free nv driver. They may be able to use the
    proprietary "nvidia" driver, which supports hardware 3D.

    - anton
    --
    M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
    anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
    http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html

  4. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:54:36 +0000, Anton Ertl wrote:

    > Stefan Patric writes:
    >>You should get the dedicated ATI driver.

    >
    > I assume you mean ATI's proprietary driver "fglrx".


    Yes.

    > [snip]
    >
    >>I'm not up on Intel boards. In fact, I avoid them. Have read a lot about
    >>incompatibility issues with them and Linux -- mainly Intel chipsets,
    >>onboard graphics and ethernet chips -- especially since the Microsoft and
    >>Intel collaboration to develop hardware that's "Vista Ready." I'm sure
    >>this will change after the Linux community has time to write drivers,
    >>etc.

    >
    > You don't know what you are talking about. Intel has very good Linux
    > support, including supplying programming information and free drivers
    > for the graphics chips (they are pretty much the only game in town in
    > that respect) and better Linux support for their wireless chips than
    > most other manufacturers. Their Ethernet chips give very good
    > performance under Linux and have been very reliable in my experience.
    >
    > I don't have experience with Intel boards, but they have a good
    > reputation.


    Then why have I been reading so much about "problems" with the new
    "Vista Ready" Intel boards, and related Intel hardware, on the Usenet (and
    other forums) over the past few months? This was what I was referring to.
    These complaints come directly from people who purchased the boards
    specifically to run Linux on. Prior to the release of these new
    motherboards, there was hardly a peep about Intel hardware, which is to be
    expected -- problems solved, compatibility issues resolved -- and of which
    you are referring. With the release of any new hardware -- Intel, Asus,
    anybody -- there are usually problems until the Linux community catches up
    with the software. That's why any hardware I consider for my Linux systems
    has to have been "out there" for at least 6 months or so.

    Just because the old, fully debugged stuff works great doesn't
    necessarily mean the brand new stuff will, too.

    Stef

  5. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:11:49 -0600, Mark Adams wrote:

    > Stefan Patric wrote:
    >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:09:41 -0600, Mark Adams wrote:
    >>
    >>> Stefan Patric wrote:
    >>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:01:44 -0600, Mark Adams wrote:
    >>>>

    > [snip]
    >>>>> I know I want the Core 2 Duo, but I have no idea what mobo to build this
    >>>>> around. Anybody have any suggestions about any of this?
    >>>> Go here and plug in your requirements: http://www.motherboards.org/mobot/
    >>>> It'll spit out all the boards that satisfy them.
    >>> I can't get anything on core 2 duo boards. 8-\

    >>
    >> MOBOT is a VERY picky database. For example, if you specify solely a Core
    >> 2 Duo CPU motherboard, there might not be any that take ONLY that chip,
    >> but there may be a lot that take BOTH Core Duo AND Core 2 Duo CPUs, which
    >> MOBOT considers not to be the same motherboard as ones that ONLY takes the
    >> Core 2.
    >>
    >> Start simple: enter only the socket type of the CPU you want; then, if
    >> you get anything, search again, but with the form factor or chip set or
    >> memory type or manufacturer, and so forth, one requirement at a time in
    >> order of importance. If you enter too many requirements to begin with,
    >> there may not be any motherboards that fulfills all those requirements,
    >> and you'll get nothing.
    >>
    >> Stef

    >
    > I finally got a decent query looking for CPU "Core 2 Extreme, Core 2
    > Duo, Pentium 4, Pentium D". I don't see anything there that really
    > floats my boat, but then there's quite a bit to sort through.


    Keep playing with MOBOT. I fiddled with it off and on over several weeks
    when researching what motherboard would be optimal for my needs. I
    initially started with Socket Type (AM2) and Form Factor (ATX), and
    progressed from there, one thing at a time, with different variations of
    minor requirements until I whittled the choices down to 5 or so.
    Finally, settled on the Abit KN9.

    > If I go this route, I'm thinking pick out a few boards that I think look
    > good and then see what kind of deal I can wangle on a combo deal through
    > Pricewatch.


    I got most all the parts for my AMD 64-bit system through www.newegg.com
    Overall, good prices. Fast service, too.

    > At this point, I'm not sure what to do. The easy but kind of risky
    > thing to do is upgrade. The cost-effective but riskier thing to do is
    > sort it out and replace the video card.


    Before you start shelling out dollars, find out what the problem(s)
    is(are) with your current system.

    Stef

  6. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    Stefan Patric writes:
    >On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:54:36 +0000, Anton Ertl wrote:
    >
    >> Stefan Patric writes:
    >>>I'm not up on Intel boards. In fact, I avoid them. Have read a lot about
    >>>incompatibility issues with them and Linux -- mainly Intel chipsets,
    >>>onboard graphics and ethernet chips -- especially since the Microsoft and
    >>>Intel collaboration to develop hardware that's "Vista Ready." I'm sure
    >>>this will change after the Linux community has time to write drivers,
    >>>etc.

    >>
    >> You don't know what you are talking about. Intel has very good Linux
    >> support, including supplying programming information and free drivers
    >> for the graphics chips (they are pretty much the only game in town in
    >> that respect) and better Linux support for their wireless chips than
    >> most other manufacturers. Their Ethernet chips give very good
    >> performance under Linux and have been very reliable in my experience.
    >>
    >> I don't have experience with Intel boards, but they have a good
    >> reputation.

    >
    >Then why have I been reading so much about "problems" with the new
    >"Vista Ready" Intel boards, and related Intel hardware, on the Usenet (and
    >other forums) over the past few months?


    I don't know. I have not noticed many such postings. The only issues
    I remember seeing: setting the resolution of Intel graphics (solved,
    but requires some effort), and the lack of a PATA port on newer Intel
    chipsets (and the resulting trouble with the chip providing PATA,
    usually the JMicron JMB363; also solved, but may require some effort).
    And these issues exist on all boards using these Intel chips, not just
    the Intel boards.

    > This was what I was referring to.
    >These complaints come directly from people who purchased the boards
    >specifically to run Linux on. Prior to the release of these new
    >motherboards, there was hardly a peep about Intel hardware, which is to be
    >expected -- problems solved, compatibility issues resolved -- and of which
    >you are referring. With the release of any new hardware -- Intel, Asus,
    >anybody -- there are usually problems until the Linux community catches up
    >with the software. That's why any hardware I consider for my Linux systems
    >has to have been "out there" for at least 6 months or so.


    That's certainly a reasonable approach.

    - anton
    --
    M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
    anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
    http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html

  7. Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

    On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:13:38 +0000, Anton Ertl wrote:

    > Stefan Patric writes:
    >>On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:54:36 +0000, Anton Ertl wrote:
    >>
    >>> Stefan Patric writes:
    >>>>I'm not up on Intel boards. In fact, I avoid them. Have read a lot about
    >>>>incompatibility issues with them and Linux -- mainly Intel chipsets,
    >>>>onboard graphics and ethernet chips -- especially since the Microsoft and
    >>>>Intel collaboration to develop hardware that's "Vista Ready." I'm sure
    >>>>this will change after the Linux community has time to write drivers,
    >>>>etc.
    >>>
    >>> You don't know what you are talking about. Intel has very good Linux
    >>> support, including supplying programming information and free drivers
    >>> for the graphics chips (they are pretty much the only game in town in
    >>> that respect) and better Linux support for their wireless chips than
    >>> most other manufacturers. Their Ethernet chips give very good
    >>> performance under Linux and have been very reliable in my experience.
    >>>
    >>> I don't have experience with Intel boards, but they have a good
    >>> reputation.

    >>
    >>Then why have I been reading so much about "problems" with the new
    >>"Vista Ready" Intel boards, and related Intel hardware, on the Usenet (and
    >>other forums) over the past few months?

    >
    > I don't know. I have not noticed many such postings. The only issues
    > I remember seeing: setting the resolution of Intel graphics (solved,
    > but requires some effort), and the lack of a PATA port on newer Intel
    > chipsets (and the resulting trouble with the chip providing PATA,
    > usually the JMicron JMB363; also solved, but may require some effort).
    > And these issues exist on all boards using these Intel chips, not just
    > the Intel boards.


    Not all my reading is confined to just comp.os.linux.hardware. I read
    about a dozen or so other linux groups; plus, subscribe to a couple
    Linux-specific mail lists, peruse a few online computer magazines, as well
    as regularly frequenting my local Linux user and tech groups. It all adds
    up....

    Stef

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3