Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Wed 13th May 2009 01:18 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 363569
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]: intel on linux isnt a great comparison
by uaxactun on Fri 15th May 2009 00:00
in reply to "RE[3]: intel on linux isnt a great comparison"
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-11
Intel had open specs and open drivers for far longer than ATI, the chip is simpler AND they actually have paid developers for the xorg driver. The intel driver is probably the best maintained driver for xorg right now.
The result?
The benchmark here clearly shows that the result is not what you would expect, the performance is awful. Comparing my hp box at work, the graphics performance are actually better in vista than linux with the xorg-intel driver, even after tuning the driver parameter for migration heuristics (which did a HUGE difference).
Compare this to the nvidia binary blob, which gives me the opposite result on another box. ATI is in an unusable state at the moment (I'm not taking sides with any graphic vendor, that's just a fact).