Hello! On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:44:11 +0200 Florian Philipp <li...@binarywings.net> wrote:
> Am 21.07.2012 07:55, schrieb waltd...@waltdnes.org: > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 08:49:32PM -0500, Alecks Gates wrote > > > >> I'd pick AMD, and very likely one of their APUs if you don't need > >> intense graphics, as they seem to be able to handle most things > >> well and even some light gaming. > > > > How do AMD's and Intel's open source video drivers compare? > > > > Last time I tried to use AMD's open source driver, it worked well for > office applications and minor OpenGL (glxgears, desktop effects, etc.) > but it couldn't play a DVD on full screen (1920 * x) without frame > drops. (Yes, I tried tuning parameters with mplayer2). > > Intel's driver works well enough for this but it doesn't have much > head room, either. > > ATI's closed source driver works pretty well, too, nowadays. I had > trouble with xorg-server-1.12 but haven't investigated it, yet. > > Regards, > Florian Philipp > One of my friends uses ATI video card both on desktop and laptop machines and he told me recently that the free driver for ATI video chips ( http://xorg.freedesktop.org/wiki/ati ) is very good nowadays and is being actively developed. He also said that the performance of his video card with open-source driver in different modes is almost the same as with the proprietary driver. I just don't remember the exact video card model, unfortunately. And according to this article: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTA3NDE AMD releases the code for some newer chips as well. Which gives more chance for the new hardware to work good with GNU/Linux. Regards, Vladimir ----- <v...@ukr.net>
