"The last time we had looked at the performance of Intel's integrated graphics under Linux with their open-source driver was back in February when testing the GMA 3000 IGP using an Intel DQ965GFEKR motherboard. However, with display drivers constantly improving, we recently carried out some additional Intel Q965 graphics tests along with comparing these numbers to discrete graphics solutions from AMD/ATI and NVIDIA."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-24
"""
I have always wondered if I should go with a faster graphics card with poor open source drivers or a poor graphics card with good open source drivers for my laptop.
"""
Depending upon your actual *need* for 3D performance, consider who you want to give your money to. ATI doesn't care if the open drivers are poor as long as they can still sell you a card.
If you *need* the extra performance of the ATI... well, get what works for you. We don't have to be martyrs.
But frankly, if I were not going with Intel (which I plan to do on my next purchase) I'd go with an Nvidia. At least there you have open source 2d, and a company that at least treats their users on OSS operating systems as first class citizens.
All this could change if AMD/ATI start *doing* instead of just talking about doing, though.
Take a look at the Intel X3100 chipset in the wikipedia link posted by someone above. It's a mobile chipset and looks quite interesting.
Member since:2005-10-06
Member since:
2005-08-12
While I agree with what you're saying for other reasons (stability), keep in mind that they were using the third party open source drivers.
I have always wondered if I should go with a faster graphics card with poor open source drivers or a poor graphics card with good open source drivers for my laptop. I think this answers it all.