Rogelio Serrano wrote:
On 8/14/06, Dieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The valid performance comparison
> would be a board with the XF86 driver vs. our board with our driver.
> So, if our board with our driver can beat my ATI Radeon 9200 with the
> XF86 r200 driver, then it is better.
I recall reading that the OGC should have about the same performance
as the ATI Radeon 9200.
> Even most Linux users aren't going to pay more for a
> slower board just because it is open or uses a clever design.
If the OGC will be about the same speed as the ATI 9200, and the
ATI 9200 costs about US$50-60, then the OGC had better not cost
much more than $50-60. I'm thinking that BSD/Plan9/Linux/etc.
users might pay a bit more, perhaps $60-75, but that's probably
about the limit for most. If the OGC comes in at $200-300 it
is not going to sell very many. Even $100 will be very tough
sledding.
I dont mind if it cost more.
I don't either (I will pay $100), but computer assemblers and the
average user do care about price. Price is one of the main drivers in
the PC market.
Can we do accelerated non x stuff on the radeon with closed source
drivers? Of course not. End of argument for me.
There is an open source driver (XF86) for the Radeon 9200 board.
--
JRT
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
