video card for new computer

Xen list at xenhideout.nl
Fri Dec 15 22:30:00 UTC 2017


Ralf Mardorf schreef op 15-12-2017 22:37:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 22:23:01 +0100, Xen wrote:
>> Then people have reported gaming with near 100% performance on one
>> monitor in Windows, while doing desktop work on the other monitor in
>> Linux :p.
> 
> Off-topic and still related:
> 
> Regarding performance and quality not only the graphics is important. I
> never experienced screen tearing when even using the cheapest CRT, but
> I experience it even with my not that cheap DICOM standard and for
> general usage good rated LED monitor.

What is screen tearing?

I still don't know what it is.

> For many usres it might be just important that the 3D acceleration is
> good enough for using google-earth running on a 3D desktop environment
> session at a relatively good, resp. quite usable performance.

Sure I don't discount that.

But you really don't need an APU that can run Overwatch at 43fps average 
for that.

Here's the thing: Overwatch is unplayable below 60fps.

My point is simply that the APU is *too much* and *too little* at the 
same time.

If they still had onboard graphics that *too* would have been sufficient 
for google-earth.

The only target audience for APUs is people playing games the likes of 
World of Warcraft.

* if you want less, onboard graphics is fine
* if you want more, you need discrete
* the APU serves the midrange

But you pay for it.

And you can't upgrade.

Without paying even more.

So the APU keeps you stuck in the middle.

It's like jumping across a ditch with a too-short run-in.

You don't get to the other side, but you have left the side you are on, 
and you end up in the middle of the ditch.

You end up in the mud. Now what?

You can't go back and you can't go forward.

You don't want to pay more, and you can't get your money back.



More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list