> >I'm confused. Is Intel video desirable in any way? > Intel video is desirable if one of this conditions is met: > > a) you need a decent (PCIe) system and need open source drivers > b) you only need "light" 3D acceleration (eg. OpenGL screen savers, glX, quake3, etc) and want to save some > money. c) you dont mind that drivers are proprietary, but are still annoyed that they wont compile or link correctly into kernel 2.blarg-18-git3 and have no way to resolve the issue since the module is binary. ive got both an ATI and a Nvidia. and its always something. either the Xorg version is newer than the one they built their binary module for. or a symbol changed in the kernel and thus depmod breaks. or your version of DRI doesnt like their version of DRM. its a neverending dance with those binary modules, even before you factor in the 'freeness' of them... now that intel is again the leader in price/performance _and_ open drivers, theres no reason to suffer with AMD solutions.. this goes not just for video, but for everything else. AMD mobos are more likely to be some Nvidia thing where even the ethernet driver was reverse-engineered, or the wireless card isnt Intel so it requires NDISWrapper, etc...
