First of all, big surprise, right? Stuck with it for now, though. Not sure if AMD is actually any better at this point, but that's a problem for a different time.
So I've tried fedora now, (can list hardware later in post)and got it to install fine, did the system update, 4gb or so later, that's good to go, so now I figure it's time to get the GPU drivers working so I can make progress on making a daily driver out of this machine.
There's a lot of conflicting information and alternate routes to go with the drivers as I've gone to see, so that's confusing enough already.
So I'm on the KDE version of F38, since I would like to use Plasma.
I found and installed the "latest" dkms driver via cuda.
Haven't made other changes at all yet.
But at this point, it black screens after the grub menu. If I use nomodeset I can access the system, but I'm stuck in 1024x768. This is obviously terrible, I have a GPU for a reason and I would like it to work. Before installing these drivers I could at least use native resolution and native refresh rate.
It's defaulted to Wayland of course, which I hear can be another issue by itself, but I don't know the pros and cons of it vs using X (or X11 it whatever is actually called). I also know the open drivers can have issues, but am not sure if they would be useful for me.
Relevant hardware: MSI MAG Z790 i7 13700K RTX 3070 Ti
So obviously these drivers don't work for me, but I'm not sure what I need to do from here. Google got me this far, but there's not a lot of mentioned of being forced to use nomodeset, and nothing relevant at all if how to get proper drivers installed properly.
I did add the RPM Fusion repo, but haven't used it yet. Or at least the free one, can't remember if I added the non free one yet.
Happy to find outputs of whatever you need, but I'm still very new to using a terminal, so I don't know much about what I can do with it in general, much less what to do with it or try to look at in this specific case. I've picked up bits and pieces, but until I can get a working environment, learning is difficult.
I don't think you understand what seeing a 4k image or video means. You can't see a 4k image or video without a 4k screen. Maybe a 15 year old camera can capture it, but you can't see it, even with today's phone screens.
The only TV I've ever owned was like 19". The only real-size TVs I've ever watched are my parents' and the one my roommate had in the living room.
And just because they've been available since 2019 (according to you- I honestly can't remember when they started showing up lol) doesn't mean they were common or cheap at the time. And both of those units (the ones I've spent any time with) were bought around 2016 anyway. Not sure what world you live in where everybody buys a new TV every 3 or 4 years, but it's not a universal thing, or even the norm. Where having an SDTV might justify a midnight trip to go get a real TV, the need for 4k is less than 0.
So no, I am quite sure I've never seen a 4k image or video. Because I've never owned it has access to a 4k screen. That in and of itself is enough to verify that much, without having to worry about how modern it is, it what it was shot with, or recorded on, or how it was downloaded, or where/how it was streamed or any of that confusion.
No 4k screen means I've never seen anything that could only be on one.