Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th May 2009 09:41 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Thread beginning with comment 362465
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: But is it any better than 3.5.10?
by lemur2 on Fri 8th May 2009 16:25
in reply to "RE[3]: But is it any better than 3.5.10?"
"
The Intel graphics found in most netbooks is not that flash, but nevertheless it IS a hardware-accelerated graphics GPU with a working driver.
The Intel graphics found in most netbooks is not that flash, but nevertheless it IS a hardware-accelerated graphics GPU with a working driver.
Intel graphics cards seem to be a bit hit & miss. Running Jaunty on work machine (Dell Optiplex something with crappy intel chip I can't recall the model of right now), KDE is unusable. But so is Gnome unless you turn compositing off. On my home machine with nvidia card, everything is just zippy. "
Intel graphics are in a transition stage right now, and they have had significant performance regressions of late. They weren't that good to begin with.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_904_intel...
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzIyMA
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_intel_sha...




Member since:
2008-12-26
The Intel graphics found in most netbooks is not that flash, but nevertheless it IS a hardware-accelerated graphics GPU with a working driver.
Intel graphics cards seem to be a bit hit & miss. Running Jaunty on work machine (Dell Optiplex something with crappy intel chip I can't recall the model of right now), KDE is unusable. But so is Gnome unless you turn compositing off. On my home machine with nvidia card, everything is just zippy.