On Sun, 2022-12-11 at 11:55 +0100, hede wrote: > On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 04:51:10 +0100 hw <h...@adminart.net> wrote: > > > And it works like 97% perfectly fine ... > > That's an oxymoron. > > > > > > Radeon RX 6000 series was released last year. I doubt it was possible to > > > use one of these with Red Hat Enterprise Linux ootb in the beginning of > > > this year before RHEL 9 was released. ;-) > > > > I don't know, I had NVIDIA cards before and there was never a problem > > with Debian or Fedora or Gentoo being too old for that. > > Actually with NVidia it's more typical to have a kernel too new or the card > to be too old. Or other sources for incompatibility, which emerge from time > to time.
The kernel being too new is rare, and when the card is too old, it's so slow that you can as well use nouveau and it won't make a difference. > If you have less problems with NVidia, maybe you should simply stick to > NVidia then. It turned out that the AMD card is not even an option anymore because it's built so badly that not only the height but also the width exceeds the slot size. It's a few millimeters too wide and as a result, the fans won't spin and the card overheats. > > Last year was at > > least a year ago and Debian still can't use the card? Seriously? > > With Debian bookworm or sid your card should work. Both are no less Debian > than bullseye. I was never able to remember all these arbitrary names. Stable should work fine and it doesn't. > Beyond that, like others already pointed out: Hardware which needs (to get > fully supported) a kernel version newer than 5.10 won't run perfectly fine > with Debian "bullseye" 11 by default. But that's also true for all NVidia > cards. For both of them you need additional sources: For newer AMD cards it's > "backports" and for NVidia it's "non-free". Debian needs to fix that. > If you have less problems with Fedora, maybe you should simply use Fedora > instead. > For now I'm doing that though I don't want to. Only I don't have a better alternative yet. > > It's > > not even some kind of special card (except being way too large) but the > > minimum card you can get away with when you have a 4k display (and has > > only about half the performance or even less of the 1080ti FE I > > surprisingly resurrected.) > > I'd expect the RX 6600 XT to be a little below a GTX 1080 ti, with much less > power usage. But not half the performance. There's probably something wrong > with your configuration or you're using a workload which favours NVidia. Both > is possible. "A little below" is what the benchmark results you can find would suggest. In practise, the 6600 is way behind the 1080. Since there isn't anything to configure, it could be the workload. As to power, the 6600 is basically more power-friendly. However, I'm running the 1080 limited to 135W and it's fine. When I increase the limit, the fan of the PSU tends to spin up, which is annoying. I can't tell if it spins up because of the increased temperatures from the graphics card or because of the increased power output it has to deliver which might make the PSU itself warmer. I'd like to see how the 6600 behaves, but since it's built badly, I can't use it. > > On top of that, the AMD drivers are open source and in the standard > > kernel and are supposed to work. It doesn't make any sense. > > Indeed it makes sense if the kernel you use is older than the minimum > required. Update your kernel and it should work. Like I said, it had all been updated. > > Who is > > cooperative with their drivers now, NVIDIA or AMD? > > AMD (regarding Linux kernel or distribution inclusion) > obviously not > > Wayland still doesn't work with NVIDIA, but I can live without it for > > now ... > > It works fine with AMD and Intel. not with Debian Maybe if you go to lengths, and you shouldn't need to do that at all. I could see it for a graphics card that has been released no longer than 2--3 months ago, but not for one that's almost 2 years old.
