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 121889
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

>"That's patently false that open source can deliver >better drivers. "

Well - closed source isn't necessarily better than open source drivers. You're quite right they do have the upper hand, but does not always utilize this 100%.

>"Openeing up the datasheets still means nothing!."

Releasing the specs benefits all 3rd party driver developers, not only the OpenSource developers. There are some commercial 3rd party developers that produce great driver systems, but are inhibited by the hardware developers unvillingness of releasing specs. Almost no hardware delevelopers will release 3D specs, under any circumstance (nVidia won't release any recent specs, not even 2D). This could be problematic since it looks like tomorrows GFX processors will only use emulation for 2D - performed by the 3D engine.

Reply Parent Score: 1