On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:34:55 +0100 Klistvud <quotati...@aliceadsl.fr> wrote:
> <Just a thought> > I've just recently read somewhere that GNU/Linux performance of some > of the major video cards lags behind their Windows performance by as > much as 40-50%, especially in 3D and OpenGL performance, and that at > higher resolutions the lag gets even bigger. For the most part the performance is comparable with the binary drivers, if i remember the last load of linux vs Windows tests i read there was times where Ubuntu was faster, and times when win7 was faster. >I think that data was > about the binary drivers and that the open drivers are even more > behind. Anyhow, my thinking was: given that Intel has more or less > fully opened their drivers, perhaps their video cards, even if > somewhat inferior from the purely hardware point of view, are > nonetheless your best option when running GNU/Linux specifically. In > other words: is it better to have a high-end video card with less > than suboptimal drivers, or would you effectively be better off with > a somewhat middle-of-the road card having optimized drivers? > </Just a thought> Intel GPU's are not really useful for anything heavy 3D, its true there linux drivers seem to have caught up with there windows counterparts, but that still leaves them far behind nVidia and ATI. To answer the question, a little bit, I have always had no problems with the nVidia binary drivers, though I do tend to install them manually rather than tracking the version in the repo. Some of my friends who use fglrx have had problems, ranging from total breakage on kernel upgrade to the just bad 2D performance, but I hear its getting a lot better. ------ Regards, Angus Hedger Debian GNU/Linux User PGP Public Key 0xEE6A4B97
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
