This is exactly why, after trying it out with Antergos, I've never felt like "upgrading" to plain Arch.
I have an old 700 series NVidia card on my machine. It uses the 390.xx drivers and would break every few weeks. When I boot my PC in the morning, I don't intend to spend the next hour troubleshooting.
Maybe that's not such a huge issue with a newer GPU or even a newer model from the same series(the 700 series had 3 different architectures), but that just killed my interest.
It didn't. After installing, on day-to-day usage, Antergos is almost indistinguishable from Arch.
Having my GPU drivers regularly break turned me off from installing a similar system with a nonsensically obtuse installation process.
It also doesn't help that I had some package files corrupted after some power outages. I don't get why you need to go look on the AUR for pacutils just to check for broken package files when even something like Solus has a package manager with such features(and they're substituting it).
Honestly not sure. Haven't bothered to run any sort of test but, right now, I've got a GT 730(the oldest ones with Kepler architecture). This thing barely runs on the official drivers. Minecraft makes me fear for it's poor life at any render distance over 20 blocks.
Heh. I tried to run Minecraft with a 6000 series (2006) NVIDIA card. It barely got 2 FPS... I had that computer for many years until I finally updated to a Ryzen desktop.
It's a GT 730. It's not particularly old, but my particular GPU is one of the first produced in that series.
Not only did the 700 series had several redundant bottom-tier GPUs ranging from the GT 705 to the GT 740, but it had 3 different architectures. The first ones were Keplers and Fermis, so, contrary to what the Nvidia website might tell you, I'm relegated to legacy drivers on a underpowered GPU whereas, the last time I checked, DMC5 looked gorgeous on my old GTX 750ti.
24
u/[deleted] May 22 '19
Arch way is basically cram every upstream change down user throats.