I am a gamer and a linux noob. I'm trying to get my stystem to play RTCW: ET but can only run it in software mode. At this time, I don't think I will be abale to play any games until I get Mandrake 9.1 using hardware acceleratrion.

So, I was just wondereing....what you guys use?

GDX

i use geforce 4 ti4200 128mb

if you have a nvidia card you need to setup hardware acceleration

first open up a terminal window and type: glxinfo

scroll through the list and look for "direct rendering: " if it's no you are not using 3d accel.
if you use nvidia go to their site and download the latest drivers for linux
http://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x...86-1.0-4363.run

DOlsen has info on installing them
http://icculus.org/~dolson/mdkxp/?c=ttrls/nvidianew

if you use something else i can help you but others here can.

GeForce 4 MX 440 64 MB for my desktop. I have no problems running RtCW, but I haven't tried ET. GeForce 4 Go 32 MB for my laptop, runs every game I have tried with no problems, including Diablo II through WineX.

Actually, I'm using the Radeon 9500.

GDX

Geforce 4 MX440 - I got it really cheap. I don't play games on my computer ('cept quake3, ut and RTCW once in a blue moon) - so this card is perfect for me.

GeForce 4 mx 440 64mb, i can run rtcw:et finae, also ut 2003

GF4 Ti 4200 64 MB bare version. Just a few weeks after I bought it, the 128 MB version with DVI and tv out goes down in price to match. Stupid Stupid Stupid!!! :banghead:

Anyway, I use NVidia driver and I only use it to play NWN and enjoy my glx screensaver

GhostDX, you need the radeon linux drivers. Here's a link with some followup links on the subject:

http://www.zebulon.org.uk/3D9500_en.html

nVidia GeForce4 MX440 AGP w/ 128 MB DRAM.

Why not the Ti4200??? Because the place I got my machine didn't carry them... I would have prefered the Ti4200.

GeForce 3.

Glitz.

Ive got a 2 machines 1 p4 2.0 Ghz and a AMD 2000+ both with a Nvidia Geforece 4 ti 4200 64 mb ram and the amd always pulls atleast 10-20 fps more than the p4 but it has almost similar specs 8)

Where's the emoticon for EXTREME envy :?:

NVIDIA G4 Ti 4600 AGP x8 w/128 Megs DDR extremely sweet in Linux I also have direction on how to install and update NVidias latest drivers, on my site.

http://mandrake101.no-ip.org/

Those images are compressed too much. Compare:



vs



(Original images from http://icculus.org/~dolson/mdkxp/?c=ttrls/nvidianew)

I use a GF4 Ti4200 128MB right now.

How good are ATI's linux drivers these days? Just wondering in case I want to upgrade my GeForce 2 GTS in the near future.

Thanks

I have a radeon 9000 pro and it works very well. In fact I didn't need to do anything at all to get it recognized and have 3D acceleration enabled. It was recognized from the start and the install offered me to enable 3D accel.
Recent ATI cards are supported in XFree 4.3
I've always had ATI cards and they've always worked incredibly well for me.
I play UT 2003, ET and of course Quake :wink:

Hmm the impression I got was that ATI driver support was not as good as NVidia's under Linux.

They are pretty good (in some cases you'll have less problems then with NVidia).

Check out dri.sourceforge.net - you can get just about any ati cards going with their stuff.

That was quick :wink:
It's a matter of personal experience I guess. ATI cards never gave me problems so I didn't need to contact them for support. However they have a FAQ on their driver webpage which addresses most problems. And of course, you have the Linux community as well
Mine just worked without any special intervention and I find that cool for recent hardware under linux.

Well that's definitely promising for the future.

Thanks

I've got a Voodoo3 3000 and it plays RTCW just fine. I haven't tried ET yet though.

geforce 4 ti4200 128 mb of ram. works like a dream.

Well It's about time for an upgrade, trying to decide on either Geforce 6800 or 6600. I currently use a Geforce 2 GTS 64MB and have no problems running RTCW or Quake III. I can pull 200 FPS with good detail in Quake 3 with this GPU.

if you have the funds and they're no object, i always go for the best i can afford. just because you'll have it longer and you'll happy with it. if money is a little more of an object go for the slightly lesser card. i seriously doubt you'll be disappointed with it. i'm still running my geforce 4 ti4400. at the time money was an object and i wasn't willing to spend the extra 100 or whatever to go with the 4600. i lost SOME performance, but not much. it still runs great and outperforms alot of cards (some newer).

also you might want to ask yourself how much gaming you really do and if it demands such a beefy card. on the other hand, if you do cad or some heavy design, a professional grade card might be the thing to think about.

you probably know exactly what you need/want. these are just things i think about when i buy new hardware.

From memory, Intel 82852/82855 buit-in to my laptop, which is OK mostly, but I think it's only 32MB. Ran OK with Call Of Duty at least

Main PC is a Creative/NVidia GeForce Ti4400 Titanium, 128MB RAM. Two other machines running either ATI Radeon VE with 32MB, or ATI Radeon 9250 with 128MB.

I have a geforce 6600, but i'm not really a pc gamer so i couldn't care less if it was bad or good.

Heh, I am using an NVidia TNT2 M64, but that's only because that's all that I can afford right now. It came that way with the box I purchased (for 100 USD). I highly recommend any NVidia card.

Would that be a Geforce FX? I'm just wondering because I'm getting a better job soon so something like that will probably be in my range.

NVIDIA GeForce2 Ultra 64M.
Since my linux machine is on all the time, making it silent is one of the priorities. I refitted the card above (bought used for $20) with a large quieter fan (I think it could run purely passive cooling but it did come with a fan originally).

The only game I haven't been able to play comfortaby under linux with that card is DOOM3.
UT2004 looks great and play smooth at 1024x768 (albeit at lower detail level than my windows machine).

Next time I buy a video card for my main gaming rig (which runs windows), I'll do the "graphic card shuffle" with my other comps and the linux rig will end up with a totally passively cooled GeForce4 Ti4800 which is currently being used in my MAME cabinet.

Geforce FX 5200 128 Mb

geforce 6800 Ultra, what's up wtih gforce4's are they better than my puppy?

Geforce FX5700 Ultra - 256MB.

I haven't come across any games that don't play nicely - Doom 3, HL2, all fine.

When I do, I'll get a 6800GT.

My opinion: While ATI works in Linux, Nvidia always works better, with less fuss.

I lied I dont' have the 6800 Ultra. I wish, I do however want what ^ that guy has, can't find it :( . It's a really good card the local LAN parties had it on all their computers for quite a while.

Chaintech FX5200 (nvidia)

No gamer but it works good.

~2000FPS in glxgears.

heh take that from 390 from what I get and you USED to get

Lol this is funny

Intel Integrated 855GM/855GME Chipset Graphics Controller.

Long way of saying 'crap'.

But hey, I can comfortably play ET at 800x600, medium gfx, so im happy.

iphitus

GeForce FX 5700 [128 MB]

Radeon 9600 pro 256mb - 2241 FPS in glxgears

GF4 are the older generation.

Of course NVidia really muddle the waters with the GeForce4 naming: a GF4 MX is really a form of GF2 and was a budget card even when it was brand new.

The Ti ("Titanium") series was the top of the line about 2 years ago and still holds its own quite well for most current games, although under Windows it doesn't suport some of the features of DirectX 9 and may not play some of the brand new games that require some of DirectX 9 features like v1.4 pixel shaders. ((Battle Field 2 comes to mind). The "FX" series of NVidia cards was the first to support shaders 1.4

I'm not a gamer but I use a XFX GeF4Ti4200 and play NWN occasionally
Kristi

My FX5700 Ultra after the latest driver upgrade and running at 1280x1024 with regular glxgears window:

Does life get any better? Maybe with a 6800....

The sad thing is it was at 22*** frames in 5.0 seconds yesterday. :(
But still ok, on debian i got 19*** frames in 5.0 seconds now i run gentoo it's went up! So i should be happy.

GeF4Ti4200 MDV2005A 7174 driver
But, as mentioned, the FX series will do stuff the Ti's can't, so it's not just a matter of speed.

Kristi

Remember when posting glxgears fps output to include your resolution and make sure you don't resize the glxgears window and keep it active (glxgears gives the output of the active window).

I resized the window for fun and look!





Seriously though, 1280x1024.

GeForce FX 5700LE, soon to be GeForce 6600GT

GeForce FX 5900 256MB

15811 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3162.200 FPS
15796 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3159.200 FPS
15811 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3162.200 FPS

Something odd, though...when I run glxinfo it says that direct rendering is off...but isn't the kind of performance I'm getting inconsistent with lacking hardware acceleration? I have the drivers for my video card installed. Is glxinfo returning wrong information or is there something else I have to do to get hardware acceleration?

Geforce MX440 64MB ... finally works without crashing with the latest nvidia drivers ( AGpart problem solved). Pretty good performance too, for its price (of course, it's a very old model and POP won't work [on windows] although it has sufficient RAM... :( ).

Radeon 9700Pro Mobility 128M

24753 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4950.600 FPS
24785 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4957.000 FPS
25035 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5007.000 FPS
25021 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5004.200 FPS
24581 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4916.200 FPS

glxgears in 1400x1050

Are you all running glxgears Fullscreen or the window that pops up when you run the command?

Now that I've gotten direct rendering working, I'm getting about 8700 FPS at 1280x1024 and at the size that the window pops up, which is almost a 3x gain over my previous values. Am I going to see that kind of performance gain throughout, like in Neverwinter Nights or Vegastrike?

Edit: Added resolutions