Austin English austinenglish at gmail.com
Mon Oct 20 18:33:41 CDT 2008

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Daniel Kasak
<daniel.kasak at 247realmedia.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 13:44 -0500, mrxgerman wrote:
>> It's better to have an nvidia or an ati graphiccark.
> I've always bought ATI cards because of their open-source drivers. For a
> while these were a bit sketchy, but AMD is now releasing more info for
> devs, and the drivers are advancing nicely. Of course this is from the
> perspective of someone who doesn't really do a lot of gaming. For 2D
> rendering, compiz, hardware accelerated video etc, the Radeon drivers
> are very good.
> Also I've got a Geforce 4 MX here at work and I can't upgrade to
> xserver-1.5 because nVidia haven't released drivers for it yet, and it's
> unclear whether they ever will ( it's in the 'legacy' category that they
> don't like to support ).
> I understand a lot of people here poo-poo ATI's drivers and are even
> more critical of the open-source radeon drivers. I suppose the point is
> that it's possible to fix the radeon drivers looking forward, whereas
> with an nVidia you're always dependant on them to fix things for you,
> and to release a driver that will work with a recent xserver.
> Dan

While ATI may be a viable option once it's open source drivers are up
to par, that is not currently the case. The choice is up to you as a
user, but be aware that most driver bugs we see reported in the
forum/bugzilla tend to be ATI. Nvidia currently doesn't have nearly as
many problems.

That said, I like to support companies that support open source, but
for some things, such as graphics drivers, performance is more
important than principle.


More information about the wine-users mailing list