On 2008-06-17, Platoali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, last night the graphic card of my laptop got broken. So I'm
> considering to replace it with a workstation for some graphic
> applications (Mainly blender and gimp.) I need 3d acceleration, and my
> poor laptop was rendering for hours to get my job done. So I decide to
> buy a workstation instead a laptop. I want to ask, which graphic cards
> are better supported in Linux. I know that ATI have freed or in the
> process of freeing their graphic cards driver. But I did not have any
> good memory from my previous experience with ATI. My previous card was
> ATI radeon 9600m and it never worked the way it had to until broken.
> I want to know, what is the current status of ATI drivers in Linux?
> Does the problems have been solved? Can they compete with Nvidia?
>
> And I want to know which one is better supported in Linux
> kernel regardless of how much open/free the drivers is.
Definitely nVidia. Over the past few years I've had a 3-4 of
each (ATI and nVidia).
I've had continuous problems with ATI (on all 3 different
boards/chipsets). DRI works sort-of, some of the time. The
free drivers lock up, the closed-source drivers work a little
better have have bugs even in 2D mode. The video overlay never
worked on one of my ATI board (the one that used to be in my
HTPC setup).
All the nVidia cards "just work". The open 2D drivers "just
work". The closed 3D drivers "just work".
> I'm currently thinking between Nvidia Quadro fx 1700 and Ati
> firegl 5600. Does anyone have any comment about them?
I run a dual-DVI Quadro something-or-other and never had a
single problem. Just did an emerge nvidia-drivers, and
everything (including DRI) worked. Same for a dual-head nVidia
6200 setup.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I'll show you MY
at telex number if you show me
visi.com YOURS ...
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
