I just want to connect 3 screens, play Team Fortress, and have my GPU not die in the next 2 years on the cheap ;-;
Edit: Also, 2017 level performance in 2022 shouldn't cost 2017 level prices.
Still works stellar today, in son's PC.
I have a 6900XT and while it performs well, the driver is actually shit. I have had issues with one or more of my three displays not starting on boot, or not waking up from monitor poweroff.
Pinning the kernel to an older version seems to keep things stable. I was dealing with that sort of breakage what seemed like once a month for a year.
[0] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues (I think this is the correct one now that FDO migrated away from https://bugs.freedesktop.org/)
[1] #radeon on OFTC - https://people.freedesktop.org/~cbrill/dri-log/?channel=rade...
Idk about that, I’ve never believed it. My N=1 anecdata over 12 years of using Linux with the binary nvidia blob says ive generally had a good time. I only have used it on a desktop though.
It’s not like I leave the card alone either as I game on Linux, do dynamic card binding with kvm passthroughs etc.
I have similar issues with my 1080Ti by the way, it just wont recognize one or two screens and will mess up the display configuration if I turn one of them off. Going into display settings, applying a new configuration and reverting it usually helps.
[0] https://www.tomshardware.com/features/geforce-rtx-3090-vs-ra...
But ultimately, people who buy halo tier cards generally don't have a budget set, which means PSU, cooling options, and electricity bill aren't an issue. If you buy either a 6900xt or 3090 and can't afford an adequate PSU and electricity bill, you're probably better off with a completely different tier of GPU, so I get why "raw performance" is the crown that gets chased. MSRP of 3090 is roughly double that of 3080, but obviously it's not double the speeds. There's too many things to consider when you consider "best' GPU so "highest performing" is easiest to refine down to.
I don't fully agree, but I get it. And I opted for the 6900xt so you don't need to convince me of the benefits (for me, Linux open source drivers were on the list as well). But I'm not going to pretend like there is a super readily approachable alternative.
userbenchmark.com notoriously changes their benchmark ratings every time AMD releases a CPU because "AMD bad, Intel good". The core i3 9100f is rated higher than the Threadripper 2990wx [0]. And I don't just mean "on the subjective aspects". They put the i3 as rank #167 in all CPUs and the threadripper at #231. Yes, they claim the i3 is faster than the threadripper, because they don't count ANY scores over "8 cores", and Im pretty sure that it means "8 threads" and not 8 cores. Because "no workload needs more than 8 threads, so we're just going to ignore that." They also release a "review" of new AMD products every time they come out claiming that AMD is garbage for made up reasons.
All this just to say that the second any subjectivity is introduced into the mix, you'll wind up with people skewing tables to show the "real fair metrics" that favor their team. I'd rather just say "yeah, nvidia holds the crown and is technically 3% faster, but 3% isn't enough for me to care". I'm not going to start a debate over "Well actually, Nvidia is better because FPS is the only metric that matters!"
[0] https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-TR-2990WX-vs...
Do people still believe this?
I wonder what it'll take. RDNA3's soon and should be interesting to see happen.