[Ubuntu-gaming] AMD/ATI vs NVIDIA vs Intel

Mackenzie Morgan macoafi at gmail.com
Mon Jun 22 00:25:45 UTC 2009


On Sunday 21 June 2009 8:04:16 pm Danny Piccirillo wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 05:12, Joe Sloan <joe at tmsusa.com> wrote:
> > Intel graphics have generally not been as high performance as nvidia or 
ati,
> > but they have the benefit of "just working" out of the box, with 3D support
> > in the official linux kernel, with open source drivers based on intels
> > published video card specs. They do work nicely for desktop effects and 
some
> > gaming. The folks at intel are in the process of revamping the video
> > drivers, and ubuntu 9.04 users with intel video are suffering with a half
> > baked driver situation - however by 9.10 the intel video situation will be
> > greatly improved. Even with 9.04 there are repositories for kernel updates
> > and intel video drivers, which dramatically improve the video performance.
> >
> > So, who hates intel? They seem to have done fairly well by linux, compared
> > to most firms.

That's why Intel's all I use.  Getting ATI working on dual-head with 64bit 
Ubuntu was um....well, I never did figure it out.  Worked on 32bit.  Works fine 
on 64bit Karmic with Intel graphics though.

-- 
Mackenzie Morgan
http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com
apt-get moo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20090621/3de25918/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list