Why are Intel video drivers less capable in Linux?

[theresonant]

Hello all!

I have a question that has always bothered me. I'm using a HP 530 laptop, with an Intel 945GM Express video card.

If the Intel video drivers have been released as open-source, why are they worse on Linux than on Windows? I mean, my video card has a much lower performance under Linux than under Windows. It's obviously quite usable, I can play games well (on low quality profiles), but it can obviously do much better, too.

Can anyone answer this to me please? Is it the same for nVidia or ATI drivers? Is it the same for OTHER Intel video cards, or is it just mine?

Cheers!

[XaresAssassin]

wow your lucky. games start up for you.
I have an Intel GM4500HD and could play all the games I have fine on windows.
In linux the open source drivers won't even start up the game and its kinda bad for me. Hoping this will get fixed soon.

However games like Supertux work fine.

[Kingoftherings]

wow your lucky. games start up for you.
I have an Intel GM4500HD and could play all the games I have fine on windows.
In linux the open source drivers won't even start up the game and its kinda bad for me. Hoping this will get fixed soon.

However games like Supertux work fine.

Yeah, it kind of sucks. I can get games like Quake Live, UrbanTerror, and other Quake 3 games working on my x4500hd, but some others like Heroes of Newerth aren't playable at all.

I was just testing ut2004 on my x4500hd. The game starts, but it's the visual quality is much lower than it should be. I left it on default settings of all Medium with all effects on, and it came out with really short draw distances. (View distance was set all the way up) There was a little ring of light around my player, everything beyond that looked like it was night. You can kind of see the vague outline of enemies and pickups.

I have another machine running Gentoo with the git versions of the Radeon drivers, and it looks fine other than the flickering objects.

[theresonant]

I suppose UrbanTerror would be a good example for me... The game is very playable when the settings are almost minimal (low res, low quality models etc). Glest goes OK too, but it has a constant lag.

I would actually like to contribute to coding, porting and whatever, when I'll have the time (I'll try to make some), but I just want to know a real cause for this lower performance. I know it might be over my knowledge a bit, but I've been doing C programming for some years (almost 6, I think) and I'd definitely want to contribute with what I can. Issues like these keep lots of people from choosing a Linux system, be it Fedora, Ubuntu or whatever. I should probably try the forum for X developers though :)

[stevenjd13]

I would have to disagree, when I do a search online for game problems there seems to be many more problems with windows drivers than linux ones.

I myself I can run with compiz enabled - openarena - hcraft demo and most 3D games.

Also Windows does not recommend intel cards for their aero features.

So it not so much the driver but the quality of the graphics card.

[stevenjd13]

So if you need to play games go with nvidia or ATI they have drivers for linux. witch are available form RPM fusion repos

[theresonant]

@Steven:

when I do a search online for game problems there seems to be many more problems with windows drivers than linux ones.

As you may have not noticed, I'm on a laptop, therefore switching my video card equals to replacing my car's wheels with tank tracks. And I guess you get more search results for driver problems in Windows rather than Linux because Windows is used by almost 90% percent of the people, while Linux goes around 1%. Drivers in Windows are most likely well developed, otherwise the card wouldn't match it's real performance, therefore won't sell. They can't afford it, so it doesn't really happen much.

So it not so much the driver but the quality of the graphics card.

As I stated initially, my graphics card was surprisingly performant and capable beyond my expectations in Windows due to polished drivers. Low graphics card quality is out of the question.

I myself I can run with compiz enabled - openarena - hcraft demo and most 3D games.

So can I, but the quality isn't as good as it's supposed to be - with or without Compiz. And I can't say anything about Intel vs Windows Aero, since XP is the furthest I've went with a Windows OS.

Your good results are most likely the consequence of good driver development for your card, which I suppose it is ATI or nVidia. I wish I were that lucky with my laptop (I didn't buy it, it was a competition prize, so I couldn't choose). Also, this goes back to one of my initial questions: " Is it the same for nVidia or ATI drivers?" Apparently, the answer is no, ATI and nVidia are doing much better (as expected).

[stevenjd13]

Ok Sorry for the misunderstanding, I too am using a laptop with an Intel Card. So I do know what you mean. And I to found out the hard way.

I found out that though Intel cards do support 3D it somewhat limited esp GMA models for laptops they purposely cut corners to make the parts cheaper. Hence playing games can lead to incompatibilities.

Yes I can see how bad drivers can reduce performance, but I do not think that is so in you case. There are many documented problems for each card on intels web site. So when you buy you should consider carefully what hardware. Remember I made the same mistake thinking that the Intel card would play all my games and do wish I bought the other model. But blaming bad drivers id just not right.

some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA

http://intellinuxgraphics.org/index.html

So always remember choose the hardware to meet you needs.

[theresonant]

I haven't bought my laptop, I won it in a competition, I couldn't choose my hardware in any way. I mentioned this in my previous post. I'm finding it difficult to believe that drivers aren't the problem, for a few reasons:

1. The graphics card is obviously the same for both OS-es, when dualbooting. In Windows, the graphics are great. In Linux, they're not so great anymore. Now, we all know that Linux kicks Windows' ass when it's about processing speed and memory management, so the only thing that would keep the graphics down would either be X.org, an incompletely developed driver or Intel, purposely making their cards less Linux-compatible, which brings me to the second reason:
2. Intel open-sourced their Windows drivers. They want full compatibility of their card on Linux.

It looks like the problems, according to my knowledge, lie with X.org or the video driver. But nobody complains about X...

Blaming drivers IS stupid, but only when it's done without thinking. This means that when an average Joe, using Windows, would see that his pirated games suck at graphics, he would say "It's the drivers" and then proceed in upgrading them, with no improvement. But I kinda thought about it, and I'm not really the average Joe when it's about computers. I think I have reasons to believe it should be the drivers. I'm not 100% positive since I don't know the inner workings and the magical clockwork that lies in a driver, but I'm somewhat convinced it's the driver.

[theresonant]

@Maria:
Your video driver not completable for Linux
You mean "compatible", or "impossible to complete development for technical reasons"? I think it's the first, which doesn't really make sense... Nobody's trying to install Windows drivers in Linux. There are separate drivers specifically made for Linux.

You should be try to different company Linux or reinstall the video driver in Linux Os
You probably mean distribution. I did that, but the Linux driver is identical for all distributions. And reinstalling the video driver is "Windows-like" troubleshooting, which isn't of much help in Linux. Maybe you meant "update the driver"?

[bob]

Theresonant, "mariajones" won't be able to respond to you since 'she' has been banned as a spammer. Multiple usernames but didn't get a chance to deliver the payload before being eliminated.

[theresonant]

Thanks for the heads-up, Bob...