| 1 |
Platoali wrote: |
| 2 |
> Well, last night the graphic card of my laptop got broken. So I'm |
| 3 |
> considering to replace it with a workstation for some graphic |
| 4 |
> applications (Mainly blender and gimp.) I need 3d acceleration, and my |
| 5 |
> poor laptop was rendering for hours to get my job done. So I decide to |
| 6 |
> buy a workstation instead a laptop. I want to ask, which graphic cards |
| 7 |
> are better supported in Linux. I know that ATI have freed or in the |
| 8 |
> process of freeing their graphic cards driver. But I did not have any |
| 9 |
> good memory from my previous experience with ATI. My previous card was |
| 10 |
> ATI radeon 9600m and it never worked the way it had to until broken. |
| 11 |
> I want to know, what is the current status of ATI drivers in Linux? |
| 12 |
> Does the problems have been solved? Can they compete with Nvidia? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> And I want to know which one is better supported in Linux kernel |
| 15 |
> regardless of how much open/free the drivers is. I'm currently |
| 16 |
> thinking between Nvidia Quadro fx 1700 and Ati firegl 5600. Does |
| 17 |
> anyone have any comment about them? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
ATI's drivers have been buggy to the point that I avoid them 100% of the |
| 20 |
time when using linux. In multiple systems, using their drivers means |
| 21 |
that my system will hard hang 100% of the time when exiting xorg in any |
| 22 |
way. Such as logging out, killing xorg, rebooting, etc. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Nvidias drivers are far more stable in linux, I would strongly suggest |
| 25 |
going that route. I do not know the specifics of those cards, sorry. |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives