Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 6th May 2006 17:01 UTC, submitted by Phoronix
3D News, GL, DirectX "We have been overwhelmed with requests to take a serious look at the frame-rate performance differences between the various open-source and proprietary contenders. Our first article on this topic, which will likely be the first of a series of examinations, is looking at the differences between the X.Org open-source ATI Radeon driver and that of ATI's official but proprietary fglrx display driver."
Thread beginning with comment 121723
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Future of 3D on Linux...
by drahca on Sat 6th May 2006 22:31 UTC
Member since:

This is an interesting article, however, in my personal opninion if you want OpenGL acceleration on a modern 3D graphics card (not more than 2 years old) on Linux, nVidia's proprietary drivers are the only viable option right now.

In dealing with the ATI proprietary drivers I have encountered so many problems, that it's just not funny anymore. ATI does not seem to care about OpenGL or Linux. The OSS drivers are ok for R100 and R200 cards, but R300 still needs some work.

I'm hoping there will be good OSS drivers for newer graphics cards in the future but I honestly don't think it's going to happen. Frankly, there are too few developers working on too many drivers. And while I applaud their hard work, most OSS drivers are mediocre add best. Sure we can be critical on ATI and nVidia for not supporting some newer features like EXA. On the other hand, how many OSS drivers support EXA or XRANDR rotation?

I don't see any way around the proprietary drivers for now, so the way to go would be to work with ATI and nVidia on the future of X as much as possible. Things like EXA seem only to spread developer resources even thinner than they are now, and bring no real benefits in the long run.

Reply Score: 1