G5 and 3d

[Dan Brow]

My options for video cards are either Nvidia or ATI when buying a new G5,
does either company make Linux PPC drivers? I would like to have good
hardware 3d on my Apple.

Thanks,
Dan.

[Dan Brow]

Post by Dan Brow
My options for video cards are either Nvidia or ATI when buying a new G5,
does either company make Linux PPC drivers? I would like to have good
hardware 3d on my Apple.
Thanks,
Dan.

Never mind the dri project has some working R300 drivers.

[Anton Ertl]

Post by Dan Brow

Post by Dan Brow
My options for video cards are either Nvidia or ATI when buying a new G5,
does either company make Linux PPC drivers?

No. You will have to fall back to free drivers.

The fastest option with free drivers is probably the Radeon 8500/9100
followed by the 9000 Pro, followed by the 9200 and 9250.

I recently bought a Radeon 9250. UT 2004 performance with the free
driver is mediocre (see

Post by Dan Brow

Post by Dan Brow
I would like to have good
hardware 3d on my Apple.
Thanks,
Dan.

Never mind the dri project has some working R300 drivers.

All I see is that it's under development. From where do you get the
"working"? On http://r300.sourceforge.net/ I see:

|# 01/02/05
...
| * glxgears should now give about 1000 fps (depends on your cpu).

The Radeon 9250 gives 1526 fps with X.org-6.8.1 on a 1.6GHz Athlon XP.

Hmm, I should run glxgears on my ibook.

- anton

[Dan Brow]

<snip>

Post by Anton Ertl
All I see is that it's under development. From where do you get the

CVS is working, but still very buggy. Read it on linuxgames.com in the ATI
comments for the New drivers. Some one complained that there are no PPC
drivers and pointed us to r300.sf.net saying the drivers are some what
working. It's more then nothing at all, which would mean not working.
Maybe I'm just a little optimistic. Any how I'm debating on getting a
dual Xeon (w/EM64T) system instead, any reason I should go with the Mac?

Post by Anton Ertl
|# 01/02/05
...
| * glxgears should now give about 1000 fps (depends on your cpu).
The Radeon 9250 gives 1526 fps with X.org-6.8.1 on a 1.6GHz Athlon XP.
Hmm, I should run glxgears on my ibook.
- anton

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Jon Cortelyou]

Aside from the "coolness" factor. I'd go with Linux and x86 hardware if you
just going to be running Linux as your standard OS. Simply because x86 is
better supported.

Does Linux support Intel's IA-64 instruction set yet? I read that only AMD
64 was officially up and running. I'm sure Intel's will be as well in the
near future if not already supported.

Post by Dan Brow
<snip>

Post by Anton Ertl
All I see is that it's under development. From where do you get the

CVS is working, but still very buggy. Read it on linuxgames.com in the ATI
comments for the New drivers. Some one complained that there are no PPC
drivers and pointed us to r300.sf.net saying the drivers are some what
working. It's more then nothing at all, which would mean not working.
Maybe I'm just a little optimistic. Any how I'm debating on getting a
dual Xeon (w/EM64T) system instead, any reason I should go with the Mac?

Post by Anton Ertl
|# 01/02/05
...
| * glxgears should now give about 1000 fps (depends on your cpu).
The Radeon 9250 gives 1526 fps with X.org-6.8.1 on a 1.6GHz Athlon XP.
Hmm, I should run glxgears on my ibook.
- anton

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[B]

Post by Jon Cortelyou
Does Linux support Intel's IA-64 instruction set yet? I read that only AMD
64 was officially up and running. I'm sure Intel's will be as well in the
near future if not already supported.

Yes, the major distributions support IA-64, and others are working on
it.

However, IA-64 is dead as a desktop platform (and struggling as a
server platform); see for example
<http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1651166,00.asp> .

[Jon Cortelyou]

Sorry I used the wrong instruction set name. The Itanium CPUs are IA-64.

The new Intel CPU use AMD's x86-64 instruction set but I read that Linux
doesn't quite run on the new Intel CPUs yet.

Post by Jon Cortelyou

Post by Jon Cortelyou
Does Linux support Intel's IA-64 instruction set yet? I read that

only AMD

Post by Jon Cortelyou
64 was officially up and running. I'm sure Intel's will be as well

in the

Post by Jon Cortelyou
near future if not already supported.

Yes, the major distributions support IA-64, and others are working on
it.
However, IA-64 is dead as a desktop platform (and struggling as a
server platform); see for example
<http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1651166,00.asp> .

[Dan Brow]

Post by Jon Cortelyou
Sorry I used the wrong instruction set name. The Itanium CPUs are IA-64.
The new Intel CPU use AMD's x86-64 instruction set but I read that Linux
doesn't quite run on the new Intel CPUs yet.

I wouldn't say that Intel is using AMD's x86-64 instruction, but maybe
they got the idea that people want to see x86-64 before we go straight 64
Bit.

Considering EM64T is just a extension to x86, Linux will run fine on
them. I may not be able to run x86-64 Linux yet, but will be able to
soon. I need do some reading on the patch set for x86-64 to see how far
they are.

Dan.

[Anton Ertl]

Post by Dan Brow

Post by Jon Cortelyou
Sorry I used the wrong instruction set name. The Itanium CPUs are IA-64.
The new Intel CPU use AMD's x86-64 instruction set but I read that Linux
doesn't quite run on the new Intel CPUs yet.

I wouldn't say that Intel is using AMD's x86-64 instruction,

EM64T is AMD64, with a few minor variations (e.g., the missing NX bit,
and Intel is fixing that). Do you claim that this is a coincidence?
Do you think that Intel developed or co-developed AMD64? All
publically available information indicates that AMD developed AMD64 on
their own. About four years later Intel introduced EM64T, which is
remarkably similar. Do the math.

Post by Dan Brow
but maybe
they got the idea that people want to see x86-64 before we go straight 64
Bit.

What do you mean with "straight 64bit"? AMD64's 64-bit mode is
straight 64-bit. As for IA-64, Intel obviously has given up the hope
that it will become mass-market, or they would not have introduced
EM64T (which put the final nail in the coffin of the
mass-marketability of IA-64).

Post by Dan Brow
Considering EM64T is just a extension to x86, Linux will run fine on
them. I may not be able to run x86-64 Linux yet, but will be able to
soon. I need do some reading on the patch set for x86-64 to see how far
they are.

It's up to you whether you can run x86-64 Linux yet. I have an Athlon
64 box running 64-bit Linux since last April or so. I know people who
run a Dual-Opteron box with 64-bit Linux since June 2003 or so.

If you want 64-bit Linux, certainly the selection of distributions is
much larger for x86-64 than for PPC64 (where the only options at the
moment are Gentoo and maybe Yellowdog).

- anton

[Dan Brow]

Post by Anton Ertl

Post by Dan Brow

Post by Jon Cortelyou
Sorry I used the wrong instruction set name. The Itanium CPUs are IA-64.
The new Intel CPU use AMD's x86-64 instruction set but I read that Linux
doesn't quite run on the new Intel CPUs yet.

I wouldn't say that Intel is using AMD's x86-64 instruction,

EM64T is AMD64, with a few minor variations (e.g., the missing NX bit,
and Intel is fixing that). Do you claim that this is a coincidence?
Do you think that Intel developed or co-developed AMD64? All
publically available information indicates that AMD developed AMD64 on
their own. About four years later Intel introduced EM64T, which is
remarkably similar. Do the math.

After doing a little more reading I eat my words. Wow intel is starting to
use AMD instruction sets, mmmm, now I'm wondering how many of instruction
sets do both companies use of each others??

Post by Anton Ertl

Post by Dan Brow
but maybe
they got the idea that people want to see x86-64 before we go straight 64
Bit.

What do you mean with "straight 64bit"? AMD64's 64-bit mode is
straight 64-bit. As for IA-64, Intel obviously has given up the hope
that it will become mass-market, or they would not have introduced
EM64T (which put the final nail in the coffin of the
mass-marketability of IA-64).

Well I mean before IA-64 is on our desktops, you may say it's dead but HP
and few others are still trying to push it. Maybe it'll come back to life.

Post by Anton Ertl

Post by Dan Brow
Considering EM64T is just a extension to x86, Linux will run fine on
them. I may not be able to run x86-64 Linux yet, but will be able to
soon. I need do some reading on the patch set for x86-64 to see how far
they are.

It's up to you whether you can run x86-64 Linux yet. I have an Athlon
64 box running 64-bit Linux since last April or so. I know people who
run a Dual-Opteron box with 64-bit Linux since June 2003 or so.

When I said "I may not be able to run x86-64 Linux yet" I was replying to
the last poster that said "but I read that Linux doesn't quite run on
the new Intel CPUs yet".

Post by Anton Ertl
If you want 64-bit Linux, certainly the selection of distributions is
much larger for x86-64 than for PPC64 (where the only options at the
moment are Gentoo and maybe Yellowdog).

Ya, a lot more. I was just going to rebuild slackware for x86-64 (over
time) maybe if I could find some others that were interested and I had the
hardware it would be a feasible port (time wise).

Dan.

[I R A Darth Aggie]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:52:49 GMT,

+ EM64T is AMD64, with a few minor variations (e.g., the missing NX bit,
+ and Intel is fixing that). Do you claim that this is a coincidence?
+ Do you think that Intel developed or co-developed AMD64? All
+ publically available information indicates that AMD developed AMD64 on
+ their own. About four years later Intel introduced EM64T, which is
+ remarkably similar. Do the math.

What math is there to do? Intel and AMD have cross-license agreements
that date back to the Pentium, IIRC. It isn't a huge shock to see that
Intel has adapted AMD64. It would have been a huge annoyance to
introduce another 64 bit extension to the ia32 instruction set.

Even if it where Not Invented Here (at Intel).

James

[Dan Brow]

Post by I R A Darth Aggie
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:52:49 GMT,

+ EM64T is AMD64, with a few minor variations (e.g., the missing NX bit,
+ and Intel is fixing that). Do you claim that this is a coincidence?
+ Do you think that Intel developed or co-developed AMD64? All
+ publically available information indicates that AMD developed AMD64 on
+ their own. About four years later Intel introduced EM64T, which is
+ remarkably similar. Do the math.

What math is there to do? Intel and AMD have cross-license agreements
that date back to the Pentium, IIRC. It isn't a huge shock to see that
Intel has adapted AMD64. It would have been a huge annoyance to
introduce another 64 bit extension to the ia32 instruction set.
Even if it where Not Invented Here (at Intel).

Are you saying the 64 bit extension was made at Intel? I'm a little
confused on that last line. Mind clearing it up for me?

Thanks,
Dan.

[I R A Darth Aggie]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:21:27 -0500,

+
+ > On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:52:49 GMT,
+ >
+ >>+ EM64T is AMD64, with a few minor variations (e.g., the missing NX bit,
+ >>+ and Intel is fixing that). Do you claim that this is a coincidence?
+ >>+ Do you think that Intel developed or co-developed AMD64? All
+ >>+ publically available information indicates that AMD developed AMD64 on
+ >>+ their own. About four years later Intel introduced EM64T, which is
+ >>+ remarkably similar. Do the math.
+ >
+ > What math is there to do? Intel and AMD have cross-license agreements
+ > that date back to the Pentium, IIRC. It isn't a huge shock to see that
+ > Intel has adapted AMD64. It would have been a huge annoyance to
+ > introduce another 64 bit extension to the ia32 instruction set.
+ >
+ > Even if it where Not Invented Here (at Intel).
+
+ Are you saying the 64 bit extension was made at Intel? I'm a little
+ confused on that last line. Mind clearing it up for me?

Sure. Quoth:

It isn't a huge shock to see that Intel has adapted AMD64.

James

[Anton Ertl]

Post by Dan Brow
<snip>

Post by Anton Ertl
All I see is that it's under development. From where do you get the

CVS is working, but still very buggy. Read it on linuxgames.com in the ATI
comments for the New drivers. Some one complained that there are no PPC
drivers and pointed us to r300.sf.net saying the drivers are some what
working. It's more then nothing at all, which would mean not working.
Maybe I'm just a little optimistic. Any how I'm debating on getting a
dual Xeon (w/EM64T) system instead, any reason I should go with the Mac?

It has a nice case? Linus is also using one? You want to do PPC or
PPC64 programming?

Otherwise, if you want 3D and can live with proprietary drivers, sure,
an i386 or x86-64 system offers you more options. I would go with an
Opteron-based system instead of a Xeon-based system, especially if you
want to use x86-64 (Xeons with that feature have been on the market
for a relatively short time, and the support for x86-64 in and for
Xeons is probably not as mature as for AMD's chips). See also a
thread on that topic in c.o.l.h.

Post by Dan Brow

Post by Anton Ertl
The Radeon 9250 gives 1526 fps with X.org-6.8.1 on a 1.6GHz Athlon XP.
Hmm, I should run glxgears on my ibook.

Done now. I get 346fps (with the Xfree coming from Debian Sarge).
That's disappointing; is the Mobility 9200 really that slow, or is
there another explanation?

- anton

[Shyamal Prasad]

"Dan" == Dan Brow <***@fullmotions.com> writes:

Dan> Maybe I'm just a little optimistic. Any how I'm debating on
Dan> getting a dual Xeon (w/EM64T) system instead, any reason I
Dan> should go with the Mac?

The one under my desk (dual 2Ghz G5) has nine fans but is *way*
quieter than my old AMD XP2000 (1.67Ghz) workhorse (running with a
quiet 1800 rpm fan). Those Intel/AMD chips radiate some serious
power.....

Cheers!
Shyamal

[Dan Brow]

Post by Shyamal Prasad
Dan> Maybe I'm just a little optimistic. Any how I'm debating on
Dan> getting a dual Xeon (w/EM64T) system instead, any reason I
Dan> should go with the Mac?
The one under my desk (dual 2Ghz G5) has nine fans but is *way*
quieter than my old AMD XP2000 (1.67Ghz) workhorse (running with a
quiet 1800 rpm fan). Those Intel/AMD chips radiate some serious
power.....

I can't here either of my P4 3GHz systems under my desk, but an Athlon my
friend left here well in Korea can be heard from the bedroom, must be
20-25 ft away.

The G5 I was looking at comes liquid cooled. I don't see any fans in
the pictures either.

Dan.