| 1 |
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 12:55 AM, <waltdnes@××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 08:49:32PM -0500, Alecks Gates wrote |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> I'd pick AMD, and very likely one of their APUs if you don't need |
| 5 |
>> intense graphics, as they seem to be able to handle most things well |
| 6 |
>> and even some light gaming. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> How do AMD's and Intel's open source video drivers compare? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> -- |
| 11 |
> Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I've never used an Intel chip actually (well not in ages, and not on |
| 15 |
Linux), but they tend to have the best open source drivers. Their |
| 16 |
graphics chips aren't nearly as good, though. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
AMD radeon open source drivers are getting better with every kernel. |
| 19 |
Apparently there was a huge performance increase with 3.5 alone. They |
| 20 |
are catching up and as long as you don't have something brand new the |
| 21 |
support is pretty good (and apparently even this is getting better, |
| 22 |
too). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Funny enough, there are some things I've actually had run faster using |
| 25 |
radeon than fglrx, mostly with wine games. But the radeon driver |
| 26 |
still does not have full support and even some things will simply not |
| 27 |
work with them. |
Archives