On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:11:49 +0100 David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote: >Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf-ZCLZIpdjs0kJGwgDXS7ZQA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >writes: > >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 21:27:37 +0000, Will Godfrey wrote: >>>On (say) an asus motherboard with on-board radeon graphics. I'm not >>>really fussed about the graphics, but these seem to have better Linux >>>support than Nvidea ones (especially for RT kernels). >> >> Hi, >> >> AFAIK this even isn't true for the proprietary drivers [1], let alone >> the FLOSS drivers. However, I migrated to Intel. > >At least with the kind of laptops I work with (these days, mostly >Thinkpads), the troublefree graphics were onboard Intel. No problem >either suspending or hibernating, no "not-yet-serviced" or >"no-longer-serviced" problems, no binary blobs, no crashes, no black >screen of graphics death (Nvidia on Thinkpad T61), no gradual >deterioration until death (AMD on mainboard I think), no loss of support >(AMD on external card I think), no crashes for accelerated desktop. >Probably no useful gaming performance either, but then I wouldn't know. > >I don't know whether Intel still deals in onboard graphics and >particularly not in relation to desktop computers. > >But at least with laptops and over about a decade of experience, they >have by far been the least problematic with Linux for me. If you don't >need the kind of rendering performance graphics cards specialize in, >don't pay the price in stability and non-support the market leaders >exact. > Thanks David. Actually, it now occurs to me I've never had a computer with Intel graphics It's always been Nvidia or AMD :o -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk Say you have a poem and I have a tune. Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
