Hello, I can only comment about my experience (facts). On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:42:22 +0430 Platoali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, last night the graphic card of my laptop got broken. So I'm
> considering to replace it with a workstation for some graphic
> applications (Mainly blender and gimp.) I need 3d acceleration, and my
> poor laptop was rendering for hours to get my job done. So I decide to
> buy a workstation instead a laptop. I want to ask, which graphic cards
> are better supported in Linux. I know that ATI have freed or in the
> process of freeing their graphic cards driver.
No, they just released some specs. They did not release a single line of the
fglrx driver source.
> But I did not have any
> good memory from my previous experience with ATI. My previous card was
> ATI radeon 9600m and it never worked the way it had to until broken.
> I want to know, what is the current status of ATI drivers in Linux?
> Does the problems have been solved? Can they compete with Nvidia?
>
I tried it yet-once-more a couple of months ago, it did not work, just like the
few dozens I've tried before. Particularly I found:
1.- 100% cpu usage under any wm, while idle
2.- xinerama just plainly doesn't work, it's not usable, and provoqued xorg
log spamming due to a bug
This was with an hd2600.
> And I want to know which one is better supported in Linux kernel
> regardless of how much open/free the drivers is. I'm currently
> thinking between Nvidia Quadro fx 1700 and Ati firegl 5600. Does
> anyone have any comment about them?
I never found a nvidia card with did not work with a simple
"emerge nvidia-drivers". They just work.
In any case, luck with anything you choose.
--
Jesús Guerrero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpMXwJG9dXcL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
