On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Daniel Kasak <daniel.kasak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 13:44 -0500, mrxgerman wrote: > >> It's better to have an nvidia or an ati graphiccark. > > I've always bought ATI cards because of their open-source drivers. For a > while these were a bit sketchy, but AMD is now releasing more info for > devs, and the drivers are advancing nicely. Of course this is from the > perspective of someone who doesn't really do a lot of gaming. For 2D > rendering, compiz, hardware accelerated video etc, the Radeon drivers > are very good. > > Also I've got a Geforce 4 MX here at work and I can't upgrade to > xserver-1.5 because nVidia haven't released drivers for it yet, and it's > unclear whether they ever will ( it's in the 'legacy' category that they > don't like to support ). > > I understand a lot of people here poo-poo ATI's drivers and are even > more critical of the open-source radeon drivers. I suppose the point is > that it's possible to fix the radeon drivers looking forward, whereas > with an nVidia you're always dependant on them to fix things for you, > and to release a driver that will work with a recent xserver. > > Dan > > > > > While ATI may be a viable option once it's open source drivers are up to par, that is not currently the case. The choice is up to you as a user, but be aware that most driver bugs we see reported in the forum/bugzilla tend to be ATI. Nvidia currently doesn't have nearly as many problems. That said, I like to support companies that support open source, but for some things, such as graphics drivers, performance is more important than principle. -- -Austin
