Are ATI graphics cards any good?
lazer1 at blueyonder.co.uk
Mon Apr 20 20:29:51 UTC 2009
On 20-Apr-09, Jorg Andersson wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:46:21AM +0100, Ben Edwards wrote:
>> So ive tried ATI twice and both times not had a very positive experience.
I missed the start of this thread, so I am guessing the earlier part!
I have bought or installed 4 PCs, a ready made tower for which I bought an ATi
a laptop with a special laptop ATi 1100 around 2007, a tower I built for
myself with an
Nvidia around 2006,
and a tower I built for some relatives with an ATi this month,
I have found both ATi and Nvidia to be good, they are definitely different.
the Nvidia card plays the ATi demos eg the chimp and butterfly demo,
the ATi doesnt seem to play the Nvidia demo,
but that could be because the ATi demo is more open.
the chimp's fur looks better on an ATi, but it is nonetheless fine on the
I think the honest truth is that you should buy whichever is better value
at the time you purchase, eg for the recent machine I got a hugely discounted
DDR3 ATi card for 49 quid.
the recent tower I built is curious because the AMD motherboard uses Nvidia
but the gfx card is ATi, it functions just fine.
>After AMD bought ATI they have released specs for some features of their
>chips. The radeonhd project has come a long way toward a free driver
>for newer ATI cards. Nowadays if you care in the least about how the
>companies treat your freedom, you should choose ATI over NVIDIA.
this is certainly true, AMD + ATi is one of the most promising developments
in graphics for anyone who wants non Microsoft options,
IMHO closed specification hardware is a very ominous phenomenon and really
should be legislated against as being anticompetitive cartel-like behaviour.
if you have to choose between 2 similar options always choose the
more open specification product even if it is a bit more expensive.
>ubuntu-users mailing list
>ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
>Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
More information about the ubuntu-users