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 122089
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: 2d?
by leech on Sun 7th May 2006 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 2d?"
leech
Member since:
2006-01-10

I don't know how long you've been in the computer industry, but have you ever noticed that most people either know hardware or software, but rarely know a lot about both?

Probably the same thing with the hardware companies, I bet that the chip designers and the driver writers are not the same department. If they are, then perhaps some of their designs are inherintly flawed, because ATI's drivers do suck. I've basically seen on lists of worse drivers ATI or Creative always taking the number 1 position, though since the catalyst drivers have been coming out, there has been an improvement.

Reply Parent Score: 1